T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[Reban]

No problem. I only know because I posted it and I only spotted it because I was trying to shove ten bodies...eh thats another story

Here's the post http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=439585&postcount=98

We'll see what Marc says officially when version 0.7 comes out.

 

[Murdoc]

Rogue scheme payoff

First of all, very glad to have the latest errata!

However, either I am not understanding this, or this needs to be fixed:

SCHEME PAYOFF
P = V x C – (R + DMs)
P= Payoff
V= Scheme Value
R= Reward Die Roll
C = Current Characteristic
DMs=Die Mods
Payoff is a multiple of the Scheme Value based on the
Reward Roll.

First of all, what is "Current Characteristic"? Is that the Controlling Characteristic?
Second, the formula as written would make (R+DMs) meaningless, as in:
p = 100,000 x 10 - (10 +1) which would equal 1,000,000 - (11) or 999,989. I think it is supposed to be:
P = V x (C - R + DMs) That would make more sense.

Lastly, what DMs are we talking about here? Are they instead supposed to be the Mods applied to the CC during the Reward roll, or something else?

Interestingly, while I like the change, it is drastic enough that it just invalidated two characters in the game I am running right now. :toast:
(Actually, not sure about the Scout getting a Ship Share now instead of a Scout ship. I like the idea that they just outright own it since they most likely stole it, rather than continuing to be on detached duty to the Scout Service.)

 

[DonM]

First of all, very glad to have the latest errata!

However, either I am not understanding this, or this needs to be fixed:


First of all, what is "Current Characteristic"? Is that the Controlling Characteristic?
Second, the formula as written would make (R+DMs) meaningless, as in:
p = 100,000 x 10 - (10 +1) which would equal 1,000,000 - (11) or 999,989. I think it is supposed to be:
P = V x (C - R + DMs) That would make more sense.

Lastly, what DMs are we talking about here? Are they instead supposed to be the Mods applied to the CC during the Reward roll, or something else?

Interestingly, while I like the change, it is drastic enough that it just invalidated two characters in the game I am running right now. :toast:
(Actually, not sure about the Scout getting a Ship Share now instead of a Scout ship. I like the idea that they just outright own it since they most likely stole it, rather than continuing to be on detached duty to the Scout Service.)

I'll ask Marc.

But how does it invalidate your characters? It's your campaign, Marc's not shouting "All your chars r belong to FFE".

 

[Murdoc]

I'll ask Marc.

But how does it invalidate your characters? It's your campaign, Marc's not shouting "All your chars r belong to FFE".

Oh I know that; I'm not going to crumple them up or anything. I'm just saying that they wouldn't have been possible under the current errata/would have turned out differently, between this and the new mustering out rules. For one character it is like I mentioned a matter of ownership of her scout ship (easy enough to fudge), and the other, having received both a barony and a knighthood, should have a much lower SS. That's all. The game will continue fine. It's not nearly as bad as with the scout I made with the beta rules who was only able to stay in service so long because there was a provision for regaining your sanity that is no longer there. Oh well.

 

[David Johansen]

re v7.0

All this and no clarification on personal combat and damage? Seriously? Don? Marc? Are you guys trapped in a black globe or something?

Just to list a few that seem to come up constantly in case you missed them.

It is currently impossible to fire a single shot and move.

It is completely unclear how Pen, Bullet, Crush, etc differ from each other and whether or not any of them stack against armor or not. Also whether they are applied to armor similtanously or sequentially which would matter a great deal since the armor would disappear after being penetrated by the first effect. Especially since the later effects generally lack the capacity to penetrate the armor.

I know and understand that ammo tracking isn't a place Marc wants to go but there needs to be a discussion of the philosphy or at least when some bench mark for when the referee should declare there isn't enough ammo for auto fire and then one last bullet, because it matters.

Lastly, the npc damage 10+ rule really needs to state clearly that it is an option that should be ignored when shooting at npcs with bullet-1 weapons, seriously, the amount of hay that is being spun into exrement over npcs being bullet proof is absurd but ultimately correct as things currently stand. I realize that PCs will be packing guns that do four dice of damage at the low end and the bullet-1 guns are pretty low tech. However the rule doesn't work in the context of some of the examples right in the book and it needs to be fixed.

 

[DonM]

Combat is the major open red item. Marc is looking at it, but it's not going to come piecemeal.

 

[thalassogen]

Oh, that sounds good, Marc looking at the combat rules. I'll keep my fingers crossed!

 

[David Johansen]

Combat is the major open red item. Marc is looking at it, but it's not going to come piecemeal.

That's good to hear because we've seen three versions of it and it still isn't clear. I think there was a page or so of description of damage types in one version that's missing but I could be wrong.

 

[whulorigan]

Noble Fame (0.71 Errata)

According to the 0.71 Errata, Noble Fame is calculated as Soc x 1.5 (p. 109, corrected). Page 109 also states that Fame stacks.

So for a Noble who is a Baron (Soc=12), his base Fame is 18. If said Baron also rises to the rank of Admiral in the Imperial Navy (not an implausible occurrence), according to p.109 his Fame will then increase to 25 (Fame "Beyond the Empire"). This presumes the said Admiral did not receive any decorations that might raise it even further. This seems implausibly high.

Perhaps Noble Fame should not stack with other sources of Fame.

Suggested Possible Solutions:

1) If other sources of Fame independently result in a value equal to or less than the Base Noble Fame, then perhaps the resultant Total Fame for a Noble might equal Base Noble Fame +1 or +2.

2) Let Noble Base Fame = Soc x1.5, but stack other sources of Fame with Soc x 1.0. Use the greater of the two values for the Final Total Fame.

​

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Fame.

According to the 0.71 Errata, Noble Fame is calculated as Soc x 1.5 (p. 109, corrected). Page 109 also states that Fame stacks.

So for a Noble who is a Baron (Soc=12), his base Fame is 18. If said Baron also rises to the rank of Admiral in the Imperial Navy (not an implausible occurrence), according to p.109 his Fame will then increase to 25 (Fame "Beyond the Empire"). This presumes the said Admiral did not receive any decorations that might raise it even further. This seems implausibly high.

Perhaps Noble Fame should not stack with other sources of Fame.

Suggested Possible Solutions:

1) If other sources of Fame independently result in a value equal to or less than the Base Noble Fame, then perhaps the resultant Total Fame for a Noble might equal Base Noble Fame +1 or +2.

2) Let Noble Base Fame = Soc x1.5, but stack other sources of Fame with Soc x 1.0. Use the greater of the two values for the Final Total Fame.

​

Honestly, I never treat Fame as one single thing. To me there are various types of Fame and Recognition. For instance, your Admiral Baron Example has two classes of Fame, his Noble Fame (for the Social pages types) and his Military Fame (which applies to other military types and wonks). Entertainers have popular Fame, Scouts have Fame with traveling/adventuring types and so on and so forth.

To me Fame works like it does in the real world, only those folks that follow a class of Famous types will take/know a N/PC's Fame. Otherwise, you best super Famous for everyone to know who you are.

 

[cuTTer]

GunMaker questions arising from 0.71

First,

"p. 250, 02 GunMaker, Weapon FillForm (clarification): For the FillForm, the D value from GunMaker 05, Burden and Stage (page 253) applies to both D1 and D2."

Does that require a qualifier like "if H2 is not blank" or "if D2 > 0"?

It's the difference between a Standard Heavy Pistol being 3D (base 1, standard +1, heavy +1) or 5D (base 1, standard +1 [twice], heavy +1 [twice]).

Second,

Should the D value from GunMaker 05, Burden and Stage (page 253) be applied to Hits (v1)?

As it stands Hits (v1) doesn't appear on the Weapon FormFill at all, so the advice regarding Totals for Deliberate Design on p.243 is moot.

As it stands Hits (v1) value will never be modified by Stage or Burden.

So a Standard Heavy Pistol might be 3D or 5D as discussed above, but will remain 1D as regards Hits (v1), which we (optionally?) use against NPCs (or PCs?).

 

[Licheking]

I thought fame was calculated once at mustering out, therefore you don't get this stacking effect from increases in noble rank. Same with Medals you take the bonus from the highest one earned not each one as its earned.

 

[whulorigan]

Fame Stacking

Honestly, I never treat Fame as one single thing. To me there are various types of Fame and Recognition. For instance, your Admiral Baron Example has two classes of Fame, his Noble Fame (for the Social pages types) and his Military Fame (which applies to other military types and wonks). Entertainers have popular Fame, Scouts have Fame with traveling/adventuring types and so on and so forth.

To me Fame works like it does in the real world, only those folks that follow a class of Famous types will take/know a N/PC's Fame. Otherwise, you best super Famous for everyone to know who you are.

I thought fame was calculated once at mustering out, therefore you don't get this stacking effect from increases in noble rank. Same with Medals you take the bonus from the highest one earned not each one as its earned.

Well, the Fame Rules on p. 109 (left column near top) says:

"Fame Stacks. A character's Fame is the sum of all Fame Points received."​

And the stacking I was referring to in my post is not due to increases in Noble Rank, but rather of being a Noble of a particular (final) rank (See Errata 0.71, p. 109) in addition to other sources of Fame (Military Rank, Medals, etc.), which, if I am reading p. 109 correctly, and have not missed something stated elsewhere in the BBB, means that those Fame points do stack according to the Rules as Written.

Or perhaps your comment: "I thought fame was calculated once at mustering out ... " is revealing what I am missing. Do you mean to imply that if a character has multiple careers (e.g. Spacer Officer, and then Noble), that upon mustering out of each career there is an associated "Fame Track" unique to that career, so that a character may have multiple independent Fame scores? I think this would be a fine solution, but a clarification comment to this effect should then be added to the Fame description.

I appreciate Magnus's comment upthread about Fame being calculated differently based on the "class" of people with which you are dealing (and would probably do something like that myself if I were running a campaign), but that does not seem to be what the RAW are implying. A note of clarification, I believe, is necessary.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Thanks.

Well, the Fame Rules on p. 109 (left column near top) says:

"Fame Stacks. A character's Fame is the sum of all Fame Points received."​

And the stacking I was referring to in my post is not due to increases in Noble Rank, but rather of being a Noble of a particular (final) rank (See Errata 0.71, p. 109) in addition to other sources of Fame (Military Rank, Medals, etc.), which, if I am reading p. 109 correctly, and have not missed something stated elsewhere in the BBB, means that those Fame points do stack according to the Rules as Written.

Or perhaps your comment: "I thought fame was calculated once at mustering out ... " is revealing what I am missing. Do you mean to imply that if a character has multiple careers (e.g. Spacer Officer, and then Noble), that upon mustering out of each career there is an associated "Fame Track" unique to that career, so that a character may have multiple independent Fame scores? I think this would be a fine solution, but a clarification comment to this effect should then be added to the Fame description.

I appreciate Magnus's comment upthread about Fame being calculated differently based on the "class" of people with which you are dealing (and would probably do something like that myself if I were running a campaign), but that does not seem to be what the RAW are implying. A note of clarification, I believe, is necessary.

No doubt, it does need some clarification. My solution is purely my ATU method for dealing with Fame and its stacking.

As to Medals and Discovery Fame, I do calculate that according to all Medals and Discoveries, etc. the character has earned during their Career(s). Which makes Scout Leader Boothe uncomfortable as he has quite the Fame thanks to his multiple Discoveries during OPERATION: TRAILING CARRIAGE.

 

[Licheking]

The way i do it and i may well have misinterpreted the Fame rules, was you worked out the Fame from all sources at mustering out and only applied the best one. So you would check all the armed forces Fame results and take the best one, then do your Noble Fame if you have one and then Fame from other sources. Armed Forces would stack with Noble and they would stack with Other Sources.

But having reread the rules it appears you are right and that all sources stack which makes for some gross Fame scores. I have 4 players in my group and 2 of them have high Fame one with 24 and the other with 30, how he got to be known across several galaxies is beyond me and so i have changed how fame works in my games.

 

[Original_Carl]

I posted in the errata thread, but I'm looking for ideas to work around the missing information in the local hex population table.

Anyone penciled in values for this?

 

[Draconian]

End mistakenly written Edu in 2 places on char. sheet

In my errata posting I said (July 29):

-----
p. 106, Character Card T5-001 (for humans):

The UPP, on the top right of the Character Card, and the DNA section, top right of the Character Card (Back), misspelled End [C3] as Edu. So there are 2 Edu's by mistake in the characteristics.

(Same for the inside front cover reproducing this sheet.)
-----


I distinctly said there were TWO spots on the character sheet where End was misspelled as Edu. Also the error is reproduced on the inside front cover, which reproduces the character sheet.

Yet in the errata 0.71 you only chose to mention one out of these FOUR occurrences.

 

[DonM]

In my errata posting I said (July 29):

-----
p. 106, Character Card T5-001 (for humans):

The UPP, on the top right of the Character Card, and the DNA section, top right of the Character Card (Back), misspelled End [C3] as Edu. So there are 2 Edu's by mistake in the characteristics.

(Same for the inside front cover reproducing this sheet.)
-----


I distinctly said there were TWO spots on the character sheet where End was misspelled as Edu. Also the error is reproduced on the inside front cover, which reproduces the character sheet.

Yet in the errata 0.71 you only chose to mention one out of these FOUR occurrences.

It's the only one Marc's fixed so far. The others are red items. I suspect he'll nail those down shortly, but I try to keep the errata in synch with his changes, even if I'm aware of typos he hasn't fixed.

Does that make sense?

 

[andycowley]

Wow (related errata comment) .... I just spent the last 5 hours marking up my personal (hard drive) version of the T5 text master.pdf file to the v0.71 errata using PDF converter enterprise 7 .... pretty easy but mind numbingly boring ..... but at least I now have an electronic (searchable) version of T5 with all the 'official' errata marked up ..... yay!

 

[Draconian]

Character sheet End

It's the only one Marc's fixed so far. The others are red items. I suspect he'll nail those down shortly, but I try to keep the errata in synch with his changes, even if I'm aware of typos he hasn't fixed.

Does that make sense?

To be honest, no. It's an identical error, repeated in several places. The errata is noted in the UPP row, but it's also in the DNA row on the bottom half of the character sheet. I don't see what else C3 could be, since this is the human character sheet. Certainly it can't be Edu.

And since the human character sheet is reproduced identically in the inside front cover, why hesitate to errata that too? It would seem to be a slam-dunk.