T5.09 Errata Discussion Thread

[Garnfellow]

In short, the rules for the OTU are different than the rules in the T5 BBB. T5 BBB is not chained to the setting.

The rules for the OTU need to be spelled out - but not in the T5 BBB.

I completely disagree with this conclusion -- a good toolkit game needs to explain how to modify the toolkit to fit different settings. T5 doesn't clearly explain the setting assumptions behind the rules.

99% of people coming to T5 will come with an expectation that T5 models the OTU. And for most of the rules, that works perfectly fine. And then there are a handful of exceptions. This is extremely confusing.

The T5 rules should explain (if only briefly!) the difference between the OTU and Galaxiad milieu, explicitly point out those few places where the T5 rules can produce results that don't work with the OTU, and include a sentence or two noting how referees can modify T5 results to fit the OTU.

"In the 1105 setting, the maximum population is A. The Galaxiad setting does not have this restriction."

Boom. Done.

 

[Garnfellow]

Hospitable Secondary Worlds.

Section G, Worldgen, "Other Worlds" (page 413).

Hospitable worlds, per the definition on page 405, are non-mainworlds that "are potentially habitable or exploitable worlds located in the Habitable Zone."

Page 413 gives rules for generating hospitable worlds, but the table for "Inner and Hospitables" does not list hospitables as a potential result.

If I'm reading this right, you could never generate a non-mainworld hospitable.

EDIT: I think I see what happened. Going back to version 5.0, there are three separate tables for Inner worlds (HZ-2 or less), Hospitable worlds (HZ -1 to +1), and Outer worlds (HZ+2 or more). The only difference between Inner Worlds and Hospitable worlds is on a roll of 3, which results in either an inner world or hospitable world.

In version 5.09 the Inner and Hospitable tables were combined, but the result for a roll of 3 should have been something like "Inner or Hospitable." I think this is straight up errata, and will post in that thread.

 

[Garnfellow]

Given the recent discussion on Government Levels, I wonder if there should be a note in the world generation section that specifies that referee choice can always result in UWPs that cannot be generated randomly.

For example, Rhylanor's canon government code of 3 cannot be rolled with its canon pop code of 9. But there's nothing magical about a pop 9 world that makes a self-perpetuating oligarchy impossible, just much more likely to be classified differently.

Similarly, GURPS Interstellar Wars world generation could create size 4 worlds with exotic atmospheres (A), but these could not be generated using T5.

I suspect the T5SS may have paved over some "irregular" UWPs that could not have been created using straight up T5 rules. If so, I'm not sure that was necessary or even desirable.

 

[exedore6]

Marine and Soldier Occupation Skill Table

It looks like the 'Occupation' skill column on pages 62 and 66 (Soldier & Marine) are both inaccessible, due to the omission of Occupation on the Operations tables. Looks like it happened when simplifying the Operations tables (to eliminate the Commando and Technical tables). Was it the intent to remove the Occupation operation, with a vestigial skill table, or was it an omission in the Operations table?

 

[The Pakkrat]

Sophonts

In Sophonts, S-12 Sophont Special Abilities, Table B, 6 Trades, results -5 and +5

It says Table D2. Where is Table D2? There is no Table D2 on that page nor the next page.

08/25/2016 I ran into this when generating sub-species for the Vargr.

Via satellite, this is the Pakkrat.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

In Sophonts, S-12 Sophont Special Abilities, Table B, 6 Trades, results -5 and +5

It says Table D2. Where is Table D2? There is no Table D2 on that page nor the next page.

08/25/2016 I ran into this when generating sub-species for the Vargr.

Via satellite, this is the Pakkrat.

The T5 manuscript is in need of some editing. There are a fair number of typos.

That's on my list of things to do. When permitted to do so.

Shalom,
M.

 

[hammerquill]

pp 294&295 contradiction on drive efficiency meaning, and strange formula

If I'm not mistaken, there's a contradiction between the notes at the bottom of table X on p 294 and table Y on page 295, and a rather crucial one to actually choosing drives.

p294 says

Efficiencies round down (thus Early Jump-1 at
90% becomes Jump-0).

p 295 says

Example2. At TL12, maximum Jump for the drive is (Table W) Jump-3. The builders acquire a Generic Jump Drive-D TL13
with the same tonnage, Efficency=90%, Fuel Requirement= 1.1. The Drive can produce Jump-4 while costing only MCr12.5.
The ship, assuming a Power Plant with equal potential, requires 4 x 10% x 200 x 1.1 tons = 88 tons of fuel for a Jump-4.

[Hm. Firefox points out that there's a typo there, in fact: "Efficency" instead of "Efficiency". So an erratum in any case.]

If we applied the "efficiencies round down" rule to example 2, it would mean you could NOT get Jump-4 out of that Generic drive. This is a rather drastic rule, but if it is intended to be applied, it should be spelled out in big red letters (on a black background no doubt), and Example 2 should be amended.

If this is indeed the way it's supposed to work, though, it would be nice to have a more detailed formula somewhere that allows you to choose drives.

For example, if I want Jump-4 for a larger ship, say 400T (hull D), the tables say I could use either Jump drive H or J. H is the minimum. But say I want to save money and buy a generic drive. By the round down rule, Generic drive H gives 90% efficiency and drops me to Jump-3. But surely drive J, though the Drive Potential table also rounds its performance to Jump-4, is actually stronger than drive H. Presumably, or at least potentially, a Generic drive J would still perform at Jump-4.

As a referee, I would absolutely say so as a judgement call. A formula would help.

Now here's where we get to another very confusing thing, possibly an erratum: in two places there's a formula referenced (bottom of pp. 322 and 346, directly in reference to Maneuver drives and Power Plants, but apparently referring to Jump drives as well) that says

Drive Potential for a specific drive is the EP (Energy Points) per Hull Ton; ignore fractions and round down.
The Starship Drive Potential table pre-calculates values for most common combinations of drive and hull.

The Drive Potential table is table Z1 on p 296. But that's not the formula it's using. It is using the formula Potential=EP*2/ton. I'm guessing this came from some weird idea of adding the drive EP to the power plant EP and dividing that by the hull tonnage, but it doesn't make that clear anywhere, and it doesn't really make sense, since that would mean drive potential could be boosted by a big power plant to something higher than its rating.

So anyway, I think this should be laid out much more clearly, right up front in the discussion of Starship Design on p 278. It should state what EP are (which is not mentioned on the tables in question and was very hard to find), and give the formula Drive Potential = (Drive EP)*2/(Hull Tonnage). Then when you get to Tech Level Stage Effects you can refer back to that formula for a proper calculation. In my example above, I get that a Generic Drive J, with 90% efficiency, gives (900EP*2/400Tons)*0.9 = Jump-4.05; success!

 

[Garnfellow]

Pychohistory

Here's the T5 description of "Practical Psychohistory" at TL 23 on page 508:

Practical PsychoHistory 23. The ability to make exact and accurate predictions of the social behavior of large groups of sophonts and, based on those predictions, to shape the course of future history. The ability to predict the long term consequences of specific events.

How does this differ from TL 15 Hiver manipulation methods, which are often described as using "psychohistory techniques"? (See, for example, canonical descriptions of the Hiver K'Kree War.)

Even if we assume that Hiver manipulation abilities are grossly overstated and their social science abilities are far higher than their baseline tech level, TL 23 effects seem well beyond TL 15 capabilties, even with a miraculously lucky success. It's like a stone age culture mastering space flight.

 

[Garnfellow]

World Size [Revisited]

A few pages ago I pointed out that the distribution for large worlds (A-F) was flat, and we threw around a few ways to fix that. SanDragon suggested 3d6-3, which I initially dismissed out of hand -- it siginificantly changes the size distribution from Classic Traveller, and it "breaks" the consistent use of 2D in world gen.

I've got to say, though, I'm coming around to this proposal. 3D -3 is certainly much simpler than "2D-2, but if you roll 10 then . . ." And the revised distribution is really a feature rather than a bug: it puts the average world size between 7 and 8, closer to human standard than 5, which has an average surface gravity of only .625g.

Here are the odds for various methods:

World Size	2D-2	T5	3d6-3
0	2.77	2.77	0.46
1	5.55	5.55	1.38
2	8.33	8.33	2.77
3	11.11	11.11	4.62
4	13.88	13.88	6.44
5	16.66	16.66	9.72
6	13.88	13.88	11.57
7	11.11	11.11	12.5
8	8.33	8.33	12.5
9	5.55	5.55	11.57
10	2.77	0.46	9.72
11	0	0.46	6.44
12	0	0.46	4.62
13	0	0.46	2.77
14	0	0.46	1.38
15	0	0.46	0.46

 

[Garnfellow]

Planet Size and Atmosphere

DonM used a simple fix for the T5SS data to make sure world size was always large enough to support the atmosphere:

• Atm 1/A/B/C, Size 3+
• Atm 2/3, Size 4+
• Atm 4-9, Size 5+

I wonder if maybe T5 shouldn't at least reference this as an option.

For that matter, maybe T5 should have a sidebar pointing out all the OTU limitations used in the T5SS:

Size capped at A
Atmosphere restricted as noted
Pop capped at A
TL limited based on polity: 15 (Imperial, Hiver, K'Kree), 14 (Zhodani, Aslan, Solomani)

 

[dalthor]

T5 sensors - costs of standard packages

On page 257 of the T5.09 release there is a list of standard sensor prices.

The numbers appear to be way off as you get into the higher tech levels, once you get beyond standard and attack range.

For example, at TL-14 it lists the cost of an Ult DS Surf Comm-14 as 3 MCr.

I come up with a different number, based on the info on page 299:

Base cost is MCr 1 per table A.
Ultimate multiplies the cost by 3 per table B, tech level stage effects (TLSE)
DS (deep space) multiplies the cost by 5 per table D, space range effects.

This gives a total of MCr 1 x 3 x 5, or MCr15. This calculation is more in line with the sensor creation example on page 355, in the right column.

Why the disparity?

Are the reduced prices due to it being a package, and truly accurate? Or are the range increases automatic as you go, and the only multiplier is based on TLSE?

I want to know before I submit as errata.

(BTW, IMTU a standard unit automatically gets the ultimate and DS mods without the multipliers, because it is 4 TLs above the base version. I define STANDARD as the base TL of the item, and if built 4 levels above that standard, it gets the range and TLSE modifiers automatically at no additional cost. The cost multipliers are used only if the base TL wants to improve performance by applying those effects.)

 

[dalthor]

T5 drives - minimum sizes

The Drive-A maneuver drive is 2 tons per T5.09 page 295.

Per the T5.09 errata document, page 12, regarding T5.09 page 295, drive tons, it indicates an omission -- drive tonnages cannot be less than the Drive-A tonnage.

T5.09 page 326 gives an example of a Maneuver Drive-B; the tonnage in that example goes down to 1 ton -- below the minimum of the Drive-A.

The errata document DOES NOT include anything for the table on page 326.

Which of the two is correct, the errata document minimum entry, or the table on 326, in which case there is no (apparent) minimum size?

Either the minimum entry needs to be removed from the errata, or the table on page 326 needs to be added to the errata list.

 

[Ariok]

On T5.09 p.179 & p.181 we have the following text:

Perhaps I have just missed it, or it is in another section (in which case it definitely needs a cross-reference note here), but there still is no specific description of what effect injury has beyond subtracting points from characteristics. In other words, at what point is a character incapacitated, unconscious, dead/dying, etc.

My knowledge of older versions of Traveller suggest the traditional zeroing of stats leads to those conditions, and I also know there is a section in T5.09 for evaluating injury and wound severity after combat, but what about during combat? The charts on p.109, 176, & 189 do not specify.

Presume you are a newbie and have never played any version of Traveller before and you have just read this section. You know how to assess damage to characteristics. But what actual effect does that have? When am I unconscious or dead/dying? Either some text needs to be added here, or a cross-reference and page number needs to be added that points to the information.

Any info about this ? I can't find anything about wound effects, when a PC fall unconscious ? Dead ?

Please someone could help ?

 

[andycowley]

I'm not sure of this is stated somewhere in 5.09 but I apply the following;

1) One Stat at zero = unconscious
2) Three stats at zero = dead

..and don't forget medic 'immediate action' .... 2D<= double skill to reduce wound by 1D

 

[Garnfellow]

Jumbo worlds and atmospheres

So for mainworlds Atmo = Size + Flux, which works fine up through size A worlds, which was the largest size for previous editions of Traveller.

T5, though, introduces sizes B (17,600 mile diameter) through F (24,000 mile diameter). And for the larger sizes, atmosphere generation gets odd. The progression of atmosphere codes generally increases in density from 0 through C, but above C we get three freak show atmo codes that don't necessarily correlate to density.

At the upper limit of planet size, nearly 60% of all size F worlds will end up with atmosphere F, "unusual," with a 14% chance of "thin, low" and 11% chance of "dense, high." No chance of even a dense breathable atmosphere, tainted or no.

I wonder if perhaps the rule should be changed to Atmo = Size (max 10) + Flux. This still allows for all the exotic atmospheres but also allows for breathable atmospheres for some of these super-earths.

 

[Garnfellow]

Fluid, Water, and Ocean worlds

Worlds with the Fl trade classification have the parameters Atmo ABC, Hydro 123456789A. These represent worlds with exotic atmospheres and non-water oceans. Methane, for example.

With errata, I believe the current parameters for Wa trade classification is Size 3456789, Atmo 3456789ABC, Hydro A. The Oc trade classification is Size ABCDEF, Atmo 3456789ABC, Hydro A.

Oc and Wa are supposed to represent worlds covered in water. But if a world has an exotic atmospheres (ABC), the world has the Fl classification meaning it might be covered in liquid but it ain't H2O.

So . . . shouldn't Wa and Oc be revised to exclude atmos ABC?

 

[SanDragon]

Robots, beginning on page 575, have no technology baseline for the components from which you can build the technology.

Or, is it assumed to be TL 13, since that is where robots show up on the Tech Chart, on page 502?

Another way to say it. Are all the components to build a sophontiform robot TL 13?

 

[Ulsyus]

Any info about this ? I can't find anything about wound effects, when a PC fall unconscious ? Dead ?

Please someone could help ?

It's in the old BBB, p215:

When any one characteristic is reduced to zero by wounds, the character is rendered unconscious. When two have been reduced to zero, the character has been seriously wounded. When all three have been reduced to zero, the character is dead. Once a characteristic has been reduced to zero, further points may not be applied to it; they must be applied to other (non-zero) characteristics.

 

[agorski]

Page 290: Table D - Hull Structure

This table specifies a TL for each hull structure, suggesting that it's not available at lower ship tech levels. Since hull armor has the same structure as the hull, this means that armor stages that allow use at lower tech levels are never used.

It makes more sense if any hull structure can be specified, as long as the hull armor stage selection brings you into compliance with the ship tech level.

 

[The Pakkrat]

Collector Drive TL and Potential

page 351: Chart C shows TL 15, Standard Stage, Collector Drive has a Potential of 3. Note that the TL Chart on the same page mirrors the chart on page 294.

-but-

page 294: Chart W shows TL 15 Collector Drive, (Standard Stage, in the caption), becomes available with a Potential of 2.


Which is correct, if this isn't Errata?

I'm designing a TL 15 ship with a Collector and need to know which to use. If the ship can Jump-3 at TL 15 on Standard Stage, great. I'll fit a Jump Drive with a Potential of 3. If not and the Potential is only a Jump-2, that's fine alongside the current Jump Drive of 2. I just want to know which is correct. Tonnage is not an object as the cargo hold still has plenty left unused tons.

Don't look at any other Stages. I'm only concerned with Standard Stage. Note also that the Modified Stage does not appear on this or many other Charts. Why is that?

EDIT: My design is capped at TL 15. So if a Collector E (EP 500) yields a Potential of 3 at TL 16, I'm stopped at TL 15. There are limits out there in the Extents, viewers. That is, unless you go off the canon reservation.