T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[damann]

A bit too far?

This makes sense. I would modify it such that the weapon can be fired, however the consequences to the person firing would change. Firing a high recoil weapon while running (or not properly braced) means you get knocked off your feet.

I think the intention of the system is for fast paced, cinematic combat. This (tripping) could quickly get too fiddly.

 

[stuartsmith183]

This makes sense. I would modify it such that the weapon can be fired, however the consequences to the person firing would change. Firing a high recoil weapon while running (or not properly braced) means you get knocked off your feet.

I think the intention of the system is for fast paced, cinematic combat. This (tripping) could quickly get too fiddly.

Combined with spectacular sucess/failure it could add some good flavor.

While running away from a Zhodani assault team, you attempt a snap fire with a high recoile weapon. Depending on specifics you could potentially be looking at a 6D (or more) roll. Spectacular success means you actually make the shot, and you can continue running. Success means you make the shot, but you are now stopped, and must start running again on the next round. Failure means you miss, and are now stopped. Spectacular failure ... well that may depend on what mood your Ref is in today... :devil:

Watching my mother shoot a shotgun when I was kid once, she did not brace correctly and ended up flat on her back with a massive bruse on her shoulder ... she took out the target though.

Admittedly I have not spent much time learning the Personal Combat system (mainly due to the threads on this forum) so I may be out in the weeds with this.

 

[Spartan159]

Page 78 02 Scholar, and Page 84 Scholar, Table A

Given that Tenure is required for promotion beyond rank 3, should tenure be rolled before promotion?

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

On the Knowledge: Grav.

Regarding the Knowledge Grav and the Skills Driver and Flyer. I had the issue come up in my PbP and I think there is an Errata in how these Skills and the Knowledge works according to the Core Rules. Below is my House Rule and the reasoning behind it and why I think this needs to corrected.

Driver handles all ground vehicles and those vehicles that are operated at less than 10 meters above the surface.▮

Flyer handles all air vehicles or anything that gets above 10+ meters above the surface when operated.▮

While the Grav Knowledge does cover operations of Grav vehicles, it only covers the basic of controls and use.▮

The Skill Driver or Flyer represents knowledge of safe operating conditions, laws, codes and regulations covering that type of vehicle operation, and standard emergency procedures for that area of operation be it ground or air based.

Thus Driver-0 (Grav-1) is not the same as Flyer-0 (Grav-1). Dealing with a major malfunction at 10 meters is whole different kettle of fish than it is at 100 meters, this is why there are different Grav based Vehicle Skills.

Yes, this my personal Ruling. I feel that for the reasons I laid out that just because both Driver and Flyer have a Grav Knowledge in them does not make them the same function. I think the rules are wrong, Grav is just the motor that moves the vehicle. That would be like saying because I have knowledge of the internal combustion engine and both cars and planes use IC engines I can drive as well as I fly. Ask any pilot, flying is not, repeat not, driving through the sky, planes function differently than cars do. This is why I am making the ruling I am. Also, why even bother having Grav in Driver and Flyer and instead just add a Grav Skill equal to Driver or Flyer, but only for Grav based vehicles.

Now feel free to argue with my interpretation. ▮

Oh, and I don't see any reason for there to even be a Grav Knowledge in the Seafarer Skill. How exactly does that work anyway?

 

[Original_Carl]

Oh, and I don't see any reason for there to even be a Grav Knowledge in the Seafarer Skill. How exactly does that work anyway?

Navigating liquid surfaces, especially when accounting for weather conditions, is significantly different than flying or driving. We're talking about a boat with a grav engine. That's how that works.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Oh, I get that is Grav powered...

I just don't understand why. I get that a Grav car is efficient because it can follow roads and only has to deal with drag and not surface friction, and Grav flyer for all the reasons we have airplanes, but then some. I just don't understand why you would bother using Lifters on a watercraft. Look just because you can stuff gravitics into a vehicle doesn't mean you should and it seems to me that boats with Lifters aren't really boats. But since they apparently do, I would have to apply me Rule to it and that again it is about knowing the rules of the traffic space and the emergency procedures.

Although as I mentioned in my previous post, I would just skip all the BS and have a seperate Grav Skill, but that might just be me.

 

[Reban]

Regarding the Knowledge Grav and the Skills Driver and Flyer.

Driver handles all ground vehicles and those vehicles that are operated at less than 10 meters above the surface.▮

Flyer handles all air vehicles or anything that gets above 10+ meters above the surface when operated.▮

While the Grav Knowledge does cover operations of Grav vehicles, it only covers the basic of controls and use.▮

<snip>

Now feel free to argue with my interpretation. ▮

Oh, and I don't see any reason for there to even be a Grav Knowledge in the Seafarer Skill. How exactly does that work anyway?

I shan't argue with the houserule direction you've gone but I will make a few observations on how I think its all supposed to work. I discovered that you can't understand the Flyer, Driver and Seafarer skills without reference to the Operations, Terrain effects, Altitudes and Depths sections of VehicleMaker pp.290-293

The key Traveller thing is that any Grav Vehicle can reach orbit in Hours = World Size. So why differentiate between Grav ground Vehicles, Grav Flyers and Grav Watercraft? Simply put the difference is where they routinely operate

If you start to look at the Terrain effects section you see that Grav Ground vehicles are only "Legally Disallowed" from terrain types other than air corridors, including over water. Likewise Grav flyers can temporarily operate at ground level. Grav Watercraft seem to revert back to the Ground Vehicle chart.

Vehicles operating in disallowed terrain do so at a Staggering 5D difficulty level because they don't routinely operate there.

The leap in understanding what this meant came when I started designing Grav tanks and could only come up with slow ponderous vehicles nothing like other editions Grav Tanks. Then I reminded myself of something I've been preaching about the Makers; that just because a Maker spits out a long name doesn't mean thats what you have to call it or use it for. Then I started designing Grav tanks as Grav Flyers with Armor and got closer to what I wanted.

For Grav Knowledge it says "Grav Knowledge associated with Flyer or Seafarer is equally applicable to Grav Driver." It simply depends on where the vehicle is operating, either in routine or disallowed terrain for the class of vehicle, to decide the difficulty of the Task for various operations.

For example lets take Dad's Grav Car to Orbit. For a PC with Driver:Grav Its going to be a Staggering 5D task but for a PC with Flyer:Grav it should be an Average 2D task

I think what I'm trying to say is that Grav vehicles supported by the Grav Knowledge can function across the full range of terrain types in Air, Sea and Surface but the difficulty of operating them in each terrain type is determined by the operator's skill.

 

[taustin]

I just don't understand why. I get that a Grav car is efficient because it can follow roads and only has to deal with drag and not surface friction, and Grav flyer for all the reasons we have airplanes, but then some. I just don't understand why you would bother using Lifters on a watercraft. Look just because you can stuff gravitics into a vehicle doesn't mean you should and it seems to me that boats with Lifters aren't really boats. But since they apparently do, I would have to apply me Rule to it and that again it is about knowing the rules of the traffic space and the emergency procedures.

I would think that the arguments for a "grav boat" would sound a like like the arguments for a hovercraft, which also isn't really a boat.

 

[andycowley]

My thought on 'Grav' watercraft ....

I can personally rationalise a Grav watercraft if I think in terms of the propulsion system ... The gravitic propulsion system in this case not being able to physically lift the vehicle clear of the water but capable of providing vectored thrust perpendicular to the planets water surface .... thus the knowledge 'Grav' associated with the skill 'seafarer' ....

 

[aramis]

My thought on 'Grav' watercraft ....

I can personally rationalise a Grav watercraft if I think in terms of the propulsion system ... The gravitic propulsion system in this case not being able to physically lift the vehicle clear of the water but capable of providing vectored thrust perpendicular to the planets water surface .... thus the knowledge 'Grav' associated with the skill 'seafarer' ....

DGP did so as well... the "Dolphin" personal watercraft.

 

[Original_Carl]

You could overload the Grav skill to take into account Flying, Driving and Sailing -- that's your option as Referee and I fully support that. Maybe blow Grav up to a Knowledge and then include Flyer, Driver and Seafarer as Skills as Grav could be considered significantly different than any other transportation-based knowledge or skill.

For me, it's just simpler to think of Grav as propulsion type for Flyer, Driver and Seafarer rather than categorize Grav as a type unto itself.

I think of it like this: you're a driver, a pilot or a helmsman.

Aside: in WRC (World Rally Championship), the drivers of the cars are "pilots" -- I've also heard the term used in MotoGP to describe the guys riding the bikes, "pilot" is common parlance for the person at the helm of a watercraft, and also the job title of the person with their hand on the yoke in the cockpit of an aircraft.

Let's play the overloaded term game!

While I've got you here does, Driver -> Wheeled apply to two-wheeled vehicles, too? I'm a bit of a motorcyclist and I can tell you the skill to drive a car is different than the skill to pilot a bike.

You know what, nevermind that last bit. If I keep on with this, I'll fall down a rabbit hole wind up with Pathfinder.

 

[Reban]

Maybe blow Grav up to a Knowledge and then include Flyer, Driver and Seafarer as Skills as Grav could be considered significantly different than any other transportation-based knowledge or skill.

For me, it's just simpler to think of Grav as propulsion type for Flyer, Driver and Seafarer rather than categorize Grav as a type unto itself.

Em, am I missing something? Grav is a Knowledge though not significantly different as its a Knowledge under Driver, Flyer and Seafarer Skills

I think you put it very well there by saying "it's just simpler to think of Grav as propulsion type for Flyer, Driver and Seafarer". It seems to me that both the skills and VehicleMaker in T5 are saying this.

Aside: in WRC (World Rally Championship), the drivers of the cars are "pilots" -- I've also heard the term used in MotoGP to describe the guys riding the bikes, "pilot" is common parlance for the person at the helm of a watercraft, and also the job title of the person with their hand on the yoke in the cockpit of an aircraft.

Rally cars also have Navigators who inform the Pilot or Driver what turns are coming and the suggested gear for the part of the course.

The old meaning of pilot is one who steers or guides a ship into and out of port or through dangerous waters. A pilot was not and is not a member of the crew but a freelancer or member of the port authority (I've been watching a series about a mega port in operation).

Pilot is distinct from a Flyer in T5 who is one who pilots a flyer vehicle though the atmosphere, where-as a Pilot ..... does what exactly on spacecraft?... but thats another thread.

While I've got you here does, Driver -> Wheeled apply to two-wheeled vehicles, too? I'm a bit of a motorcyclist and I can tell you the skill to drive a car is different than the skill to pilot a bike.

You know what, never mind that last bit. If I keep on with this, I'll fall down a rabbit hole wind up with Pathfinder.

Wheeled Knowledge says "The vehicle uses wheels" so yes bicycles, motorbikes, unicycles, Segways etc.

Interestingly this would also include traditional locomotives and cable cars and possibly lots of things that use wheels but aren't what you'd immediately think of as cars trucks or vans.

 

[Spartan159]

Looking for a clarification of the Entertainer Career, re: "Before beginning, the Entertainer determines current Talent (= 2D ), which evaluates basic ability in the career. Higher Talent is better. Talent is also initial Fame."

In this case am I rolling for the initial art skill which is also initial Fame? For Skill Eligibility the +1 Talent for a fame increase is increasing this art skill?

Ex. Character is a Reporter, Initial talent is Author 7, initial Fame is 7?

If the character had a previous career is this initial skill and fame added to existing skill / fame?

 

[Original_Carl]

Em, am I missing something? Grav is a Knowledge though not significantly different as its a Knowledge under Driver, Flyer and Seafarer Skills.

Maybe I'm confusing Knowledge and Skill again. I thought Knowledge was the parent and Skill was the child. For example, Fighting (Knowledge) and Unarmed (Skill).

Is that right or is it reversed?

 

[whulorigan]

Maybe I'm confusing Knowledge and Skill again. I thought Knowledge was the parent and Skill was the child. For example, Fighting (Knowledge) and Unarmed (Skill).

Is that right or is it reversed?

That is reversed.

 

[Reban]

Maybe I'm confusing Knowledge and Skill again. I thought Knowledge was the parent and Skill was the child. For example, Fighting (Knowledge) and Unarmed (Skill).

Is that right or is it reversed?

Ah. You've simply reversed it.

Skill is the parent and each skill contains many possible knowledges. Or to say it another way skill is the wide span of understanding and you can narrow it down with specialist knowledge in a particular area.

In the example we were discussing above Driver is the Skill and Grav is a Knowledge within it.

Driver is the skill of operating ground vehicles, including the rules of the road and basic maintenance. Taking the Grav Knowledge within the Driver Skill means you've focused on driving Grav vehicles operated on or near the ground.

What might have thrown you off is that the first two times you earn the Driver Skill you actually get one of the skill's contained knowledges. So you might get Driver-0 Grav-2 early in your career.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

What others have posted about Driver, Seafarer and Flyer skills makes sense to me; Grav is a form of propulsion for all of these.

But I want to contribute another way of looking at this. Various Traveller products have commented that at the invention of Grav technology, land / air / sea transport merge into one.

When you first receive, say, Flyer skill, you can take a knowledge of Grav. So you start with Grav-1. You then receive Driver skill. You can take the knowledge of Grav again, so now you have Grav-2. Then you receive Seafarer. You already have 2 receipts of a Seafarer knowledge of Grav, which suggests that you can now take Seafarer, so you have Seafarer-1 Grav-2. I may be reading this wrong, but this makes sense to me; you have already taken a specific knowledge in Grav vehicles, and on this third receipt of a skill with that knowledge, you are generalising your skill into operating a vehicle at sea in general, but of course can fly any Grav vehicle with your Grav-2. If you are navigating close to the sea surface in a Grav vehicle, S+K available is 3; if you are flying an air/raft over land or through the sky, S+K available is 2.

I have seen players state knowledges in brackets after a skill; my reading of the rules suggests that there is no need for this; knowledges are treated as skills in the stat line in all respects once they are there, but they can combine with a relevant skill in tasks and you cannot take the general skill before taking two relevant knowledges first. So it's not Fighting(Unarmed)-1 and Fighting(Slug Throwers)-1 and Fighting-1, it's just Unarmed-1 Slug Throwers-1 and Fighting-1. One neat variation on this rule in the character generation rules is the Army/Navy/Marine school where you have to take two levels of a knowledge.

Having said all of that, I may be misreading the rules and I am open to persuasion.

 

[whulorigan]

Pre-Rich & Rich Trade Codes

On the Trade Codes Table page (p.434):

Pr (Pre-Rich) is listed as:

Atm: 6,8 Pop: 5,9

Ri (Rich) is listed as:

Atm: 6,8 Pop: 6,7,8

Ph (Pre-HiPop) is listed as:

Pop: 8

Let us suppose we have a world that is Ri (Rich) and Ph (Pre-HiPop). If at some point in the future (say due to the political acumen of one of the planet's nobles thru promoting immigration), the Population is raised to "9" (Hi = HiPop). The Ri=Rich world then automatically falls to "Pr=Pre-Rich".

Is this intentional (i.e. overpopulation has removed some of the former "richness" of the world), or is it an Errata issue that needs to be addressed?

 

[Original_Carl]

Is this intentional (i.e. overpopulation has removed some of the former "richness" of the world), or is it an Errata issue that needs to be addressed?

That's an interesting circumstance you've found.

I think that a population increase would cause a shift in wealth, as rich people don't tend to breed as much as poor people. I can see a wealth disparity taking a world down from Ri to Pr.

 

[DonM]

And that is deliberate. Marc and I have discussed the apparently flow of those codes a number of times, and it's deliberate.