T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[grondak]

Noble Generation Thoughts

I made a Noble today and along the way, I saw a couple of situations in the book that need clarification or updates:

• Noble Checklist -- page 79 has the To Begin roll is written as "Automatic if Soc A+," but the errata 0.71 corrects p93 to say "To Begin Automatic (if Soc B+)." I think p74 needs the same correction.
• Noble Checklist -- p79 shows the use of C1 C2 C3 C4, but p93 shows the use of C2 C3 C4 C5. I generated with p93's characteristic set, and I think the use of C1 in a Noble career makes less sense than C5.
• Noble Elevation -- p93 suggests "Total successful intrigues (in the Noble's lifetime) is a Mod for Elevation." Since we are trying to roll high, intrigues should be a negative mod, or a DM.
• Noble Rank -- p74 has "Nobles begin with rank equal to their Social Standing" but p96 notes in Weighted Voting that the rank of a Noble is (= Soc minus 11).

 

[Reban]

Grondak doesn't Soc minus 11 = the number of votes a Noble has in the Moot, not rank?

 

[grondak]

Hi Reban, the section "Noble Lands" calls it "rank" -- see weighted voting, p96. There is even an erratum for that subsection, but it corrects Duke votes to 4.

 

[Draconian]

From the Errata thread:

And everything to here is in Marc's hands.

NOTE: Marc has been reviewing Combat, Beastmaker, Combat, Gunmaker, and Combat. Marc has also had to deal with some personal issues (and will be out for a chunk of October, unfortunately).

Note that if an item is already listed here, it's in the queue. If it isn't already listed in the errata, it's either a red item, a blue item for the next update, or Don left it off (it happens :file_28.

Also reviewed the Errata Discussion thread for clarification items.

Many thanks for your work, Don.

We grumble, but we plead to be understood as having a sincere drive to make T5 the best game it can be.

 

[Draconian]

That's not how I read it. I stand by my statement with one small amendment; I'll substitute 'implies' for 'states'. The text Midgardormr quoted quite unequivocally implies that the table allows results from 0 to 10, not 1 to 9 and explains what the result of a 0 and a 10 is.

The quote may be wrong. The table may not allow 0s and 10s to be generated. But that's what the quote implies.


Hans

Sorry for all the arguing. I'm trying to sort things out in my head. I think an Errata from 0.71 is adding to the confusion because it is simply wrong.

Classic Traveller expresses population with an exponent of 10 but does not specify it beyond that. For example, 8 is equivalent to "hundreds of millions".

In T5, carrying over this tradition, the roll for this exponent is 2D-2 (regardless of any factors you rolled for before such as size, atmosphere, hydrographics). However for T5 (unlike Classic), if the result is A (10), re-roll it on 9+1D for some really big, oppressive "THX 1138" population densities.

The UWP code in T5 has extensions including the PBG block. Population Multiplier (PM) is first mentioned on p. 431 but not how to generate it. It was supposed to be done along with #belts and #gas giants. The errata v.0.71 states for this page:

"While the population significant digit is explained here, the detail for generating it was left off the checklist. P = 2D−2, rerolling “0” results unless Pop=0, in which case P=0"

I think that errata was a mistake. I think the Population Multiplier was meant to be rolled as an Even Distribution from 1-9 (equal probability of each). Going back to p. 31, they illustrate 1-9 random rolls AND MENTION POPULATION MULTIPLIER AS AN EXAMPLE. Since they omitted this on p. 431, that example really is the only mention of how to get PM in the book. The PM or "population significant digit" or mathematics term "mantissa" is something you can use to get a more exact population than Classic Traveller. You need the PM and the Population (2D-2, reroll on A) together to make a number in scientific notation:

PM x 10^(Population Code)

PM = 1-9 Even Distribution (0 and 10 rolls are disallowed. 10 can't be there because such a roll would overlap into PM 1 of the next highest Population Code)
Population Code = 2D-2, unless a roll of 10(A) then use 9+1D (which can give B-F, extreme population codes made possible by very cheap FusionPlus energy, and not found in Classic Traveller.)

Because of the omissions p. 431 and 432, and confusion of the population terms (confused in the errata no less), yet because of the need to separate the significant digit of the population as a code extension away from the Population Code of Classic Traveller, it's a right mess. But some people have got it right in their planet generation utilities. It is hoped that all relevant sections will be brought into line and treat the PM extension carefully as a simple 1-9.
It is up to them whether to retain the idea that if the Pop Code is 0 the PM is 0, to make a planet truly uninhabited.

So the allowable populations may go (approximately) as (Pop code 0): 0, (Pop Code 1): 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, (Pop Code 2: ) 100, 200, 300, etc.

 

[DonM]

If this discussion is the errata for page 432, the next issue of errata will correct it to:

p. 432, B Worldgen Basics, Checklist (omission and clarification): The Population Multiple was left off the checklist. The Population Multiple should be “4. Population Multiple. Roll 2D, and consult the Even Distribution 1-9 table (page 31). If Pop=0, PM=0.” Planetoid Belts should come next as #5, and then Gas Giants as #6.

 

[Draconian]

Comparison of Habitable Zones: Tables and Maps (Reference)

I made a comparison of the data for what the Habitable Zone orbit is for each kind of star.

There are tables in 3 places which give this information:

p. 45, Distance and Range Bands; Table 7a: Habitable Zones
p. 80, Characters, Homeworld-1; Table 3: Habitable Zone Orbits
p. 548, Sophont Creation; Sophont Homeworld-4; Table B: Habitable Zone Orbit

All of these are in agreement except an Errata v.0.71 for p. 80 which I believe to be incorrect. To match the two other tables, you have to shift one of the two lines of type in the column headings. So the first headings should read ">A0-A3", "A4-A8", etc. down to "M9" which is alone as a column heading.

However, the Worldgen reference pages to the Inner System, Outer System, and Remote System on pages H1, J1 and K1 (starting on p. 438) give stellar categories for each orbit to indicate these stars have a habitable zone at that orbit, but the information differs from the 3 tables.

If I check the Master Text Old version, the reference page maps correspond absolutely to the tables (except for saying "A0" instead of ">A0"). It leaves me to wonder how so many differences suddenly crept into the maps going to the final Master Text file.

Here is a side-by-side comparison, with the differences in the maps shown in bold type:

Orbit 0:

• TABLES: K9-M9 V; K4-M9 VI; >A0-M9 D (all dwarfs)
• MAPS: the same, correct, except they give only "A0-M9" with no > sign.

Orbit 1:

• TABLES: G9-K3 VI
• MAPS: The same, correct.

Orbit 2:

• TABLES: G9-K8 V; G2-G8 VI
• MAPS: G9-K8 V; G4-G8 VI

Orbit 3:

• TABLES: G2-G8 V; F2-G1 VI
• MAPS: G4-G8 V; F4-G3 VI

Orbit 4:

• TABLES: F7-G1 V
• MAPS: F9-G3 V

Orbit 5:

• TABLES: F7-K3 IV; F2-F6 V
• MAPS: F9-K3 IV; F4-F8 V

Orbit 6(it is on both H1 and J1 but in fact it belongs to the Outer System only):

• TABLES: F2-G8 III; A9-F6 IV; A9-F1 V
• MAPS: F4-G8 III; A9-F8 IV; A9-F3 V

Orbit 7:

• TABLES: A9-F1 III, G9-K8 III; >A0-A8 IV; >A0-A8 V
• MAPS: G9-K8 III (doesn't mention A9-F1 III); A0-A8 IV; A0-A8 V (but no > sign on A0)

Orbit 8:

• TABLES: A9-K3 II; >A0-A8 III, K9-M8 III
• MAPS: correct, (but no > sign on A0)

Orbit 9:

• TABLES: >A0-A8 II, K4-M3 II; M9 III
• MAPS: correct, (but no > sign on A0)

Orbit 10:

• TABLES: A9-M3 Ib; M4-M8 II
• MAPS: correct

Orbit 11:

• TABLES: F7-G1 Ia; >A0-A8 Ib, M4-M9 Ib; M9 II
• MAPS: F9-G3 Ia; A0-A8 Ib, M4-M9 Ib; M9 II (no > sign on A0)

Orbit 12:

• TABLES: >A0-F6 Ia, G2-M9 Ia
• MAPS: A0-F8 Ia, G4-M9 Ia (no > sign on A0)

Orbit 13: The Tables don't mention it, but the Remote System Map K1 gives B0 Ia and B0 Ib as stellar types with Orbit 13 as the Habitable Zone. If >A0 is the correct column for O and B stars, the Habitable Zones for Ia and Ib stars would go in orbits 12 and 11 respectively. I am not sure if >A0 is correct, because there are some monster-sized stars which can occupy any size orbit you can name.

 

[DonM]

Ok, stop copying me. Honestly -- I just did this for Marc three days ago, and only Marc and I had seen it (I thought). Very spooky.

Well, it is October... :file_21:

 

[Draconian]

Ok, stop copying me. Honestly -- I just did this for Marc three days ago, and only Marc and I had seen it (I thought). Very spooky.

Well, it is October... :file_21:

Are you talking about the Habitable Zone orbit stuff? Yes, just thought I'd do the full comparison last night. I guess I'm obsessed with the orbital motion of large bodies...Or maybe I'm psychic; the Zhodani will pick me up and recruit me for my uncanny ability to predict the past.

The Master Text Old reference maps were perfect (except for saying A0 instead of >A0). I am totally amazed that stellar types were arbitrarily (?) changed in the final print-version file. Was there some updated stellar information that was somehow applied to the maps and not the 3 tables? I'll eventually want to see which way it should all be. It is not a serious problem for most but of great interest to the one or two people here who made system generators.

Incidentally, a good spot for that table would have been in Worlds generation as well, or at least a simple reference back to p. 45. I forget if they made one.

 

[thalassogen]

Any news concerning an errata update? I am eager to update my web apps!

 

[thalassogen]

On page 230 environmental effects are listed, but I cannot find a place where these are defined/explained further - especially the frequency they are applied with. Am I overlooking something or is this errata?

 

[DonM]

On page 230 environmental effects are listed, but I cannot find a place where these are defined/explained further - especially the frequency they are applied with. Am I overlooking something or is this errata?

Rob and I were hammering on this as well, and discussing it with Marc. The unofficial frequency we're using at the moment is once per minute, or personal combat round. Waiting on a ruling from the boss...

 

[Hemdian]

I’ve just noticed a problem with the default skills. (Hopefully I’m not repeating what someone else already found.):

There are a dozen default skills awarded to a character at the start of character generation, all at level zero. One of the default skills is ‘Turret’. Actually that’s not a skill at all, it’s a knowledge. As I understand it, if you have a knowledge, you have at least zero in the related skill. And if you have a knowledgeable skill (for want of a better term) you effectively have at least zero in all its knowledges. So having a knowledge at level zero doesn’t make sense.

So either ‘Turret’ should NOT be one of the defaults,
... or it should have been ‘Gunnery-0’,
... or it could have been ‘Gunnery-0 (Turrets-1)’

But I don't know which; so I'm posting this under Errata Discussion rather than Errata.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Ouch.

I’ve just noticed a problem with the default skills. (Hopefully I’m not repeating what someone else already found.):

There are a dozen default skills awarded to a character at the start of character generation, all at level zero. One of the default skills is ‘Turret’. Actually that’s not a skill at all, it’s a knowledge. As I understand it, if you have a knowledge, you have at least zero in the related skill. And if you have a knowledgeable skill (for want of a better term) you effectively have at least zero in all its knowledges. So having a knowledge at level zero doesn’t make sense.

So either ‘Turret’ should NOT be one of the defaults,
... or it should have been ‘Gunnery-0’,
... or it could have been ‘Gunnery-0 (Turrets-1)’

But I don't know which; so I'm posting this under Errata Discussion rather than Errata.

Either of those is good.

However as I see it I would go with a Traveller having a default Gunner-0 (Turrets-1) rather than a more general Gunner-0. By the nature of Traveller in all editions there is some chance of a character having had instruction on the use of Turrets and more specifically by the nature of ACS design which tends more toward Turrets and less on Screens and Bays (which by their nature are more the realm of BCS or Capital Ships).

 

[Original_Carl]

‘Turret’ should NOT be one of the defaults.

Yes, please. Me too. And the same for Fighter (which may have already been posted here).

I think the "average" Imperial citizen would have had minimal exposure to starship weaponry of any kind. You have likely seen armed starships, but doubtful you've had any training on weaponry, formal or otherwise, or even attempted to operate it.

Likewise, I think we can safely assume that most citizens haven't had any formal fighting training.

 

[David Johansen]

I doubt long range, long turn Traveller ship to ship gunnery is exciting enough for a video game. But video game simulations might make gunnery a default skill.

 

[Hemdian]

Likewise, I think we can safely assume that most citizens haven't had any formal fighting training.

I agree, but you could have basic skill without formal training.

Where Fighting-0 breaks down for me is that a character from a low tech world might have Blades-0 but not Slug Thrower-0. And for a mid to high tech world, a character's chance to have Slug Thrower-0 should be inversely proportional to their homeworld's Law Level. (Especially considering how different Law Levels are described!) And I can even see Unarmed-0 as probably (school yard scraps) but not definite. But with Fighting-0 comes Blades-0, Slug Thrower-0, Unarmed-0, and others ... all automatically for everyone.

In the future I might want to house rule something about this IMTU. But for now I'm just trying to nail down and understand the core rules as intended. ... Which brings us back to the discussion about Turrets-0.

 

[Hemdian]

However as I see it I would go with a Traveller having a default Gunner-0 (Turrets-1) rather than a more general Gunner-0. By the nature of Traveller in all editions there is some chance of a character having had instruction on the use of Turrets and more specifically by the nature of ACS design which tends more toward Turrets and less on Screens and Bays (which by their nature are more the realm of BCS or Capital Ships).

Certainly it makes sense to favour Turrets over the other knowledges for player characters. But there's still the issue that Turrets-1 means also Gunnery-0 and thus level 0 in all related knowledges (screens, bays, spines).

And while I can certainly see video games, etc, being used as a justification how a character can fire a turret weapon without formal training (as we see frequently in SF movies and TV), in some cases that is a bit of a stretch. If I was house ruling this IMTU I'd lean towards dropping it altogether from the default list.

In any case Turrets-0 makes no sense. So, regardless of the solution, I think it should be in the errata.

 

[Original_Carl]

I agree, but you could have basic skill without formal training.
... Which brings us back to the discussion about Turrets-0.

Regarding Fighter, I think for my own games, I'm going to rely on This Is Hard! for untrained fighters. I don't like the idea of giving out all that martial skill for free.

Regarding Turrets, I don't like the idea of giving that skill out for free either. I think it should be removed from the list of defaults.

 

[Licheking]

Regarding Fighter, I think for my own games, I'm going to rely on This Is Hard! for untrained fighters. I don't like the idea of giving out all that martial skill for free.

That would apply anyway as every task is hard.

As for Fighter-0, anyone can pick up a slugthrower and pull the trigger, anyone can also pick up a knife and slash at someone and everyone knows how to throw a punch so Fighter-0 should be automatic for everyone. The fact that they are completely outclassed by anyone with some skill is where it would come into play.

Guy with skill Fighter-0 picks up a pistol they shoot at someone 5m away, this is Range Band 1 so 1D, +1D for TiH that makes for a 2D check on say Average 7 Dex, gives them a 50% chance. Just having Fighter 1 makes it Automatic to hit at the same range, (1D against Dex 7).

Fighter-0 sounds great, but in practice its a false sense of security.