T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[dalthor]

Question 1: On page 89, the Spacers career page, it says "Term skills must be taken on the corresponding Naval Operations column if the Spacer Skills Table.

The problem? There is no "personal" and no "technical" entry on the Naval Operations. So how in the world can you use those two columns??? Can you choose between the Operation column OR technical? what about the Personal column? Or should one of the "Shore Duty" entries on Ops be technical??

Question 2: Per table B, when commissioned, the character learns one skill. Do you choose any column, Personal thru Technical?

These may apply to more than just the Spacer career, that just happens to be the one I'm using on a character.

 

[andycowley]

Dalthor,

The way I have interpreted this is that (as it says) the four earned 'Term skills' must be taken from the relevant skills table 1 thru' 7 based upon the actual Operations experienced during the four year term ..... ANY other skill earned (commission, promotion) is at the discretion of the player .. meaning they simply choose any one of the columns in the table (1 thru' 7) to roll 1D on and then take that skill or Stat increase.

NOTE; Given that Operations assignments are rolled for EACH year of the 4 year term your player could end up with rolling term skills on up to four separate columns (2 thru' 6) so its important to remember which specific operations were experienced for each of the four years of the term....

 

[cym0k]

Just reading the errata thread. T5 really needs something like Github for the errata process. I did a quick search of the forum and nothing came up. Marc could have complete control and the errata team could send edits in a more manageable fashion.

Problem: Learning a new tool.

 

[tjoneslo]

Just reading the errata thread. T5 really needs something like Github for the errata process. I did a quick search of the forum and nothing came up. Marc could have complete control and the errata team could send edits in a more manageable fashion.

Problem: Learning a new tool.

I think what you're asking for is to have a separate item for each errata item (for real or discussion). Github's issues tracker is one way to handle it. I understand why there is only one thread, it's easier to sticky and track in the board style. I have 400+ started threads because during the T20 playtest I did exactly that, started a new thread for each item I thought worthy of discussion. Multiple threads doesn't really make it any easier to search unless your reviewers have a fair amount of discipline about thread titles.

Even for an issue tracker like in Github you're relying on either the reviewers entering all the information correctly to make searching easy, or someone (say Don) to review the entries to make sure they're all up to snuff. And that's just more work for the Errata coordinator.

 

[Timerover51]

Just reading the errata thread. T5 really needs something like Github for the errata process. I did a quick search of the forum and nothing came up. Marc could have complete control and the errata team could send edits in a more manageable fashion.

Problem: Learning a new tool.

Marc needs an outside editor, not complete control.

And as I have not read the entire thread, has anyone noted the problem under Collector on page 577. Use of that word caused major problems for the original books of D & D back in the mid-1970s. I will not use the word as it is copyrighted.

 

[fridge]

Marc needs an outside editor, not complete control.

And as I have not read the entire thread, has anyone noted the problem under Collector on page 577. Use of that word caused major problems for the original books of D & D back in the mid-1970s. I will not use the word as it is copyrighted.

I wonder if it is supposed to be "ant"?

 

[rancke]

And as I have not read the entire thread, has anyone noted the problem under Collector on page 577. Use of that word caused major problems for the original books of D & D back in the mid-1970s. I will not use the word as it is copyrighted.

I wasn't aware that it was possible to copyright a word. But in any case, it sounds like you would be covered by the fair use rule.


Hans

 

[cym0k]

Marc needs an outside editor, not complete control.

I'm not up to speed on the history of Traveller, but from what I know Marc has good reasons to play his cards close to his chest after negative experiences in the past. Such is life.

 

[Timerover51]

I wasn't aware that it was possible to copyright a word. But in any case, it sounds like you would be covered by the fair use rule.


Hans

That is not what happened to Gary Gygax with D&D in the 1970s.

 

[rancke]

That is not what happened to Gary Gygax with D&D in the 1970s.

Never mind. I have better things to do with my time than playing guessing games.


Hans

 

[SpaceBadger]

Never mind. I have better things to do with my time than playing guessing games.

I believe that Timerover is referring to the terms "Hobbit" and "Ent", both of which were used in early D&D, then some legal action (I don't know details) by Tolkien or his estate forced Gygax to rename his Hobbits as Halflings, and his Ents as Treants.

 

[aramis]

I believe that Timerover is referring to the terms "Hobbit" and "Ent", both of which were used in early D&D, then some legal action (I don't know details) by Tolkien or his estate forced Gygax to rename his Hobbits as Halflings, and his Ents as Treants.

Covered under Trademark. Different form of IP, but good enough to make TSR really really nervous when Saul Zaentz sued.

 

[whulorigan]

I believe that Timerover is referring to the terms "Hobbit" and "Ent", both of which were used in early D&D, then some legal action (I don't know details) by Tolkien or his estate forced Gygax to rename his Hobbits as Halflings, and his Ents as Treants.

And also the change of "Balrog" to "Balor" (Type VI).

Never mind. I have better things to do with my time than playing guessing games.

The word that timerover is specifically refering to in the T⁵ text is "Ent"; it is used as an example of what is meant by a "Collector" on p.577.

 

[DonM]

Note that Marc's use of the word Ent is akin to Mongoose's and SJGames' use of various sci-fi creations in their work as explanations, but without defining them.

Marc doesn't present Ents from T5 Beastmaker (which would be interesting, but would no doubt get various legal folks into action) or as sophonts (similar situation).

But I'll note it in the errata pile for his consideration.

 

[Duke Craig]

Numerous T5 Errata Found

The following errata were found in about 8 Cr (Imperial standard) worth of time. It took much longer to check errata threads.
********
On (Pg 90) Soldier and (Pg 94) Marine
Army Branch/Marine Branch Table Roll 1D Numbers 1-8
Statement: There are no DMs under this table, so a soldier/marine could not be Technical or Medical.
Interrogative: Really? Was this not found in beta testing?
********
Quote: (Pg 94) Marines, C Marine Skills 6 Military, Skill Roll 1: Marines
Statement: There is no mention of Marines Skill or Knowledge or Talent. This is a blind Skill/Knowledge. Similarly Scholar, Merchant, Navy, Army, Capital, Marines,
Interrogative: Are the first and second receipts of these skills therefore knowledge, and only the third receipt of these allows a DM to be added to any task that may (at the GMs discretion) be a DM on any particular associated task roll?
Statement: It is not very clear.
********
Statement: Marines get less gunner skill than soldiers.
Interrogative: Is this right?
********
Quote: (Pg 83-95) If the character does not have a Major/Minor this benefit is lost.
Interrogative: What prevents a character from attending training, in-service, night-school, college or university while employed to obtain a Major/Minor over a couple or three years?
Statement: A Major (60-80 Credit Points) being around 30-40 hours of study per week for a year (Two Semesters) when I was at uni. A Minor being about half that.
********
Quote: (Pg 88) Merchants, Table of Merchant Ranks, R2 Drive Helper
Interrogative: Really?
Interrogative 2: Should the Merchant ranks be R1 Apprentice, R2 Drive Hand, R3 Steward, R4 Coxswain, R5 Bosun?
Interrogative 3: Should engineering be a separate department? Would individuals really be promoted to Steward Apprentice then to Drive Helper?
Suggestion: Perhaps an R1 Steward Apprentice should be promoted to R2 Steward in the Purser’s Department, and an R1 Drive Hand promoted to R2 Engineer’s mate in the Engineering Department.
Statement: Apparently the various departments of the Merchants, such as Deck, Crew, Engineering, Sales, and Gunnery have been lost.

Quote: Pg (88) Merchants Muster Out Benefits (pretty sure it is mentioned elsewhere)
Interrogative: Why does Merchant benefits stop at 8. (Roll 1d) DM + Officer Ranks (6 ranks)?
Statement: Roll 6+(DM=6)=12
********
(Pg 142)
6 Soldier Skills
Navigation
Interrogative: Why is Navigation a Soldier Skill and not a Skill or Talent?
Statement: I have never been a soldier but I have always been pretty good at navigation (perhaps a skill I picked up as a child, reading maps and charts on boats)…
********
(Pg 144)
Quote: World Knowledges.
Statement: There is no plural of knowledge.
(Pg 144)
When he begins adventuring at age 34 (7 terms)
Interrogative: Is this right?
Statement: …at age 34 (4 terms)
6+28=34 (7 terms)
10+24=34 (6 terms)
18+16=34 (4 terms)
If 7 terms, Marc is saying that a character starts gaining expertise at age 6, but this is supported nowhere else in the text. I would suggest that age 10 or 14 might be a better fit for this concept.

Statement: This is only a few of the errata that I have found apart from the obvious spelling and typographical errors, some have been mentioned in Errata V0.7 which was published 07/25/2013. This is over 2 months before I received the book. I am just wondering how such numerous errata made it into the 5.0 Print Edition which I received in October 2013. Such extensive errata has greatly reduced my enjoyment of reading this book and probably made the game unplayable from this book.

Interrogative: Is this some beta test that I am not aware of? When am I going to receive the corrected Edition 6.0?

Since FFE welcomes questions and comments about this book, I am looking forward to an official response to these questions. Thank you for your response.

 

[dalthor]

The Engineering skill has four knowledge groups: Jump drive, Maneuver drive, Life Support, and Powerplant.

Gunner skill includes Screens. Per page 162, Gunner (Gunnery, Ship’s Guns) is skill in the targeting, operation, and maintenance of the weaponry typically used by starships and spacecraft.

I can see a Marine using it and possibly running general maintenance, but I think there should be a Screens knowledge under Engineer, since somebody has to design and build them to start with, correct?

Actually, to move it from Gunner to Engineer makes more sense to me.

In any case, just thinking...comments appreciated.

 

[Reban]

Well those Knowledges are just some of the possible ones contained under Engineering. In an ATU you might have Teleport Drive or Clockwork Engine. You can also add Knowledges under a skill to cover some special area of knowledge.

I think you are correct to say that Gunner covers "general maintenance" but I'd see that as any "on mount" maintenance task; running the diagnostic, pulling the faulty module, drawing the correct one from stores, replacing it and running a system test. Anything beyond "on the mount" maintenance is a dockyard job and might require use of many skills such as Engineering, Electronics, Gravitics, Magnetics, Mechanic.

If you want to move it from Gunner to Engineer I suggest you create a Knowledge under Engineering, something like: Weapons Systems: the knowledge associated with maintaining a ships weapons and screens. It contrasts with the other Knowledges under Gunner in that it is deeply concerned with repair, modification, and maintenance rather than operation.

I've stolen that last bit from the Automotive Knowledge. Actually you could keep Weapons Systems under Gunner and assume your Marine with this skill and knowledge is some kind of specialist, a weapons artificer or armorer.

 

[Thoom]

Sure would be nice to have an updated errata! It's been a while and there are a lot of issues that need some sort of official settling

 

[MichaelSTee]

Note that Marc's use of the word Ent is akin to Mongoose's and SJGames' use of various sci-fi creations in their work as explanations, but without defining them.

Just hope nobody from McDonalds sees the text on page 584, where a certain amount of food is referred to as a quarter-pounder.
(Their lawyers have more clout than Tolkien's...)

 

[mhwittek]

Page 109 the Medals table has values for C-R from 1 through 12+, but nothing for zero. Zero (or less) is success when comparing only the characteristic and the roll. If the characteristic is 6, the mods for the rewards are +2, and the roll is 8, then it's a success and the results for this table would be -2.

That's assuming that succeeding at the rewards roll when on the specified operations means you get a medal, which may not be the case. If it isn't, then this should be clarified by saying that if the rewards roll succeeds this gives the character a *chance* to get a medal.

If one evaluates the whole medal getting process, the very first "RISK" roll would be the "*chance*" to get a medal phase since if you fail this phase of the roll not only don't you get your medal, but bad things happen to your character. Now if the first phase was not enough to leave to "*chance*" then there is second phase roll called "REWARD" roll. This represents "there a *chance* you really don't deserve a medal" even though you passed the bad-things-happen-to-you first phase. At this point, if the "REWARD" phase is passed why would any Referee not give a character a medal just because one runs out of chart. Just give the character the lowest medal. The real question is why medals are figured out the way are given out. For another post...