T5.09 Errata Discussion Thread

[David Johansen]

No but it's slow.

There's an issue I've noticed in character creation but I'm not totally sure that it's an error or misrepresented.

In the navy career the Risk and Reward Rolls are presented as cc + Mod with more dangerous missions having higher mods. I suspect the Risk should be cc- Mod and reward should be cc + Mod.

I'm pretty sure it's the same in the other careers but it seems wrong in practice if you know what I mean.

 

[Daddicus]

I think you're right, David. Either the mods should be negative numbers, or changed to DMs, or the text should say CC-Mods.

My vote would be to make them negative mods. Then, they would line up with the brave/cautious mods as intended.

My (close) second vote would be to make them DMs instead of Mods. Then the signs would be correct (positive numbers reducing your odds). This has the advantage of using a common special case for all 3 military careers, but they also happen to be the only careers with a problem.

Scholar, Scout, Merchant, Agent, Rogue, and Noble say "CC+ Mods". But, the only mod possible is brave/cautious, which is signed correctly.

Entertainer, Citizen, and Functionary do not have mods.

Craftsman is just strange. But, it doesn't need this tweak.

NOTE: Part of the issue is that the tables for Risk/Reward (on the left) and Failure/Success (on top) are inconsistent. Perhaps those tables need to change so they're consistent across the professions?

 

[Daddicus]

General: can we please change the less than (<) sign to a less-than-or-equal-to sign (≤)?

I don't know about anyone else, but I keep forgetting to assume to add the equals sign. (Trained too well at school, I guess.) ;-)

An alternative would be <=. But, I would prefer the symbol you specified if it's available.

 

[dalthor]

Drive sizes - need some SERIOUS help and clarification

I have run into some confusion on drive sizes, and before I submit something on this, I want to run it by the group for discussion. I am referring to gravatic and maneuver drives, aka G-drive and M-drive.

I tried to find descriptions and definitions of the different drive types for vehicle maker, and really found nothing useful in the section. Apparently there are assumptions made that the reader has an idea what the drives are, and how they work.

In the ACS section, the drives are described, but mention NOTHING about any vehicle types other than ACS ships. Assuming the same definitions apply to both the vehicle and the ACS rules, the descriptions should probably be moved elsewhere.

Reading thru the BBB, T5.09 page 245, in Vehicle maker, states

Grav. The vehicle moves using the Gravitic or G-Drive. This includes flyers and small craft among other things -- see page 246.

Later, T5.09 page 295 lists the minimum tonnage of a size-A G-Drive as 9 (nine) tons. This is in the Adventure Class Ships (ACS) portion, for ship design.

Finally, T5.09, page 675, in the subunits of the ton table, I found the quote

For example: the smallest G-Drive is 0.25 tons; often labelled a 1-cube drive

The current T5.09 errata documents reads --

Page 295, 11 Starship Drives, Drive Tons (omission): Minimum tonnages are missing. Add note to bottom of table, “No drive can be smaller than the ‘A’ drive of its class, even after modifications like Stage Effects.”

This has some potentially serious implications for small craft such as shuttles, cutters, pinnaces, and the like.

Is there truly a "vehicle-sized" G-drive, smaller than 9 tons?

If so, what is the difference between a vehicle maker G-drive and an ACS G-drive?

Actually, once maneuver drives (M-Drives) become available, are grav drives pretty much gone by the wayside? Especially considering the minimum M-drive is TWO tons, and is an improved G-drive?

Next, looking at the T5.09 small craft listing on page 265, under the SPEED column, it REALLY adds to the confusion, because those speeds seem to have NO RELATION I CAN FIND between hull size and drive type; yet by default it'll be a grav drive, as noted on pages 245 and 246. I think hull size SHOULD be a factor in speed calculations. Also, the speeds listed here don't seem to conform to SPEED table 07 on page 255.

To use a phrase that Terl (Battlefield Earth) might have used if he were smarter, What the Crap Nebula am I missing?

 

[whulorigan]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

Actually, once maneuver drives (M-Drives) become available, are grav drives pretty much gone by the wayside? Especially considering the minimum M-drive is TWO tons, and is an improved G-drive?

One thing to remember is that the G-Drive is internally powered by Cold Fusion/Fusion+ Modules, whereas the M-Drive requires an independent external power source capable of overclock. The G-Drive Fusion+ Modules have a duration of about 1 year, whereas the M-Drive is limited by the fuel consumption rate of its associated power plant.

So when you are comparing, the G-Drive is already [Drive + Power Source], whereas the M-Drive is just the drive.
[/FONT]

 

[Garnfellow]

Should the "Twilight Zone" and "Locked" codes be reserved for worlds of size 1+?

Should asteroid belts be satellites? (I could see a destroyed moon or something orbit a gas giant.)

 

[whulorigan]

Native Intelligent Life (NIL)

[FONT=arial,helvetica]SUGGESTION:

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Perhaps a "Native Life" (NL) indicator would be more useful than a [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]"Native Intelligent Life" ([/FONT][/FONT]NIL) indicator.

[/FONT]Intelligent life should be placed specifically and intentionally by the GM or by the setting designers. It stands to reason that life can arise on a world without necessarily gaining sapience. And even if intelligent life does arise in the history of a given world, given the billions-of-years lifespans of star systems, that life could have arisen and died out or moved on long ago, or may be yet to arise millions or billions of years in the future.

Garnfellow suggested this as an Errata proposal:

[/FONT]

Page 412, Native Intelligent Life. Delete everything. Replace with this:

Any world with an Atmosphere of 2+ has the potential for supporting or having supported native intelligent life. In Charted Space, Native Intelligent Life has developed on roughly 1 in every 100 worlds, though in different regions this may occur much more or less frequently. The referee should assign the presence of native intelligent life directly or else determine randomly on 2D. A roll of 12 indicates native life; the referee should then roll a second 2D to determine if the life is intelligent:

Frequency of Native Intelligent Life	NIL Present
Common	4+
Standard	8+
Rare	10+

If the world's Atmosphere is ABC, the life is Exotic. If the world's Pop is 0, the native intelligent life is now Extinct.

 

[Daddicus]

Should the "Twilight Zone" and "Locked" codes be reserved for worlds of size 1+?

Should asteroid belts be satellites? (I could see a destroyed moon or something orbit a gas giant.)

I would say Twilight Zone and locked should definitely be size 1+. It doesn't make sense for an asteroid belt (size 0) to be tidelocked.

I would think asteroids could be satellites of planets, but perhaps they should be called by another name? I'm thinking rings.

 

[Garnfellow]

The climate codes for "Hot" and "Cold," (HZ -1/+1) probably should have a requirement of Atmosphere 1+ or maybe even 2+.

 

[David Johansen]

So, as I'm playing around with GunMaker I'm finding Missiles of all stripes generally underpowered compared to firearms and I think I have a patch.

The problem as I see it is that the TL on missiles is a bit high. We're TL 8 and we have effective anti-Tank and anti-Flyer missiles. Where GunMaker puts them at TL 9 and TL 10. Sure we can say they are Early or Prototype or Obsolete, but this only makes them even less effective when compared to firearms. The big problem I see is that firearms are generally getting Advanced or even Ultimate by TL 10 which can make rifles comparable to missiles which just seems wrong. I think rolling back the TL modifiers for Missiles to 0 for Missile, 1 for anti-Tank, and 2 for anti-Flyer would largely solve this problem.

 

[ovka]

Burden

I am trying to understand Burden from QREBS. On pp. 151-152, there is an example of an item weighing 2.8 kg and a statement that a model with BUR = -4 reduces that felt weight by -4 kg (effectively cancelling its Burden on the character).

Later in the book (p. 628), I see Comm, Long Range weighing it at 0.2 kg (from the table) or 200 g (from the description) and having B-3 (which according to p. 150 should be written as B=-3 to avoid confusion). As with the previous example, shouldn't this reduce the burden to 0? Instead, the description says that it "carries as if it were 170g.

Am I missing something?

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[Daddicus]

I think the + vs. - vs. = is OK. On page 150 is says "The essential rule is: state the value in an unambiguous way ...." Since all of the entries are written with plus and minus signs, it's non-ambiguous.

However, I think you found a legitimate error in the 170g number. It should be 0. This has not been listed on the Errata thread yet, so I recommend adding it.

But, wait for more input on this thread, first. I could be out in left field.

 

[ovka]

I think you found a legitimate error in the 170g number. It should be 0. This has not been listed on the Errata thread yet, so I recommend adding it.

But, wait for more input on this thread, first. I could be out in left field.

... and since this is my first reading of the 5.09 version of equipment and QREBS, I was thinking I could be too.

Which example is correct?

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[Epee]

I think what is being implied is that Burden is modified by whatever unit of measure is initally given; kilos are modified by kilos, grams in grams.

No matter how well designed items should not be weightless. However, a problem sets in calculating the Burden modifiers because -1 kilo is a heck of a lot lighter than -3 grams.

Perhaps mass should always be expressed in kilos and the modifier applied to the smallest given digit; i.e., the communicator weights 0.20 kilos and so, when modified, weights 0.17 kilos.

Tech Level, if you want to model in detail, technologies that go through brief periods of very rapid advancement (such as computers, aircraft, and firearms) where the transition from Experimental to Standard only requires a few decades (in some of the above cases much less).

 

[Licheking]

Characters can only carry their Strength score in Burden/kgs. Therefore qreBs reducing the 'felt' weight of the item to nothing makes it easier to carry.

Don't think of Burden actually reducing the weight think of it as making it easier to carry. A Carbine weighing 4kgs with QREBS 000-30, wouldn't actually weigh 1kg, but for the purposes of encumbrance it counts as 1 kg against the characters Strength score.

 

[Epee]

Here's what I see:

• qreBs modifies the portability of objects.
• More primitive items have a greater qreBs and so contribute more to the load a character carries.
• More advanced items offer a favorable qreBs and so are easier to carry

.

From here forward is where we differ:
Can qreBs be reduced to zero so that, as literally taken, a character may carry an infinite number of sufficiently advanced items?
or:
Does qreBs in fact adjust the weight so that earlier tech is heavier and later tech is lighter (although, using my interpretation above, smaller lighter items lose weight and bulk more slowly)?

 

[Reban]

Is there something wrong with Comms?

I'm looking at the Comms on p.628

I see that a Size 2, 0.2L handheld Comm-8 is R=8.3 or 1000km

A Size 5 Vehicle Comm-8 is also R=8.


Now if I look at the Range Effects in ThingMaker it says that Portable Objects like a Size 2 "handheld" Comm should start as R=2 objects and be modifiable to R=6 or beyond.

Am I missing something or should the Vehicle Comm not have greater range than the handheld Comm because it has a greater volume, or is the Range listed for the handheld Comm too great?

There's also the Long Range Comm which is TLD but still only R=8.3

Can someone walk me through this?

 

[ovka]

Another Thought on Burden from QREBS

Can qreBs be reduced to zero so that, as literally taken, a character may carry an infinite number of sufficiently advanced items?
or:
Does qreBs in fact adjust the weight so that earlier tech is heavier and later tech is lighter (although, using my interpretation above, smaller lighter items lose weight and bulk more slowly)?

Perhaps the game mechanic should be that B > 0 decreases burden by B x 10% and B < 0 increases burden by B x 10%. That avoids the infinite number scenario, and still provides a significant benefit to items with a higher B. [read B x as the absolute value of B x]

I'm not stuck on 10%, perhaps the number should be 15%. It just needs to be < 20%.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[David Johansen]

I like the concept of burden but I'm never quite sure it makes sense as applied. Especially negative burden. I think matching to the units would be okay within a range of 6 - 60 so a -5 never reduces it to 0 if you see what I mean. So if you've got 1.75 kg burden -3 reduces it to 1.45 apparent kg. Similarly if you've got 175 kg burden -3 reduces it to 145 apparent kg.

A percentage would be more fluid but multiplication give some people fits.

 

[Licheking]

Doing that means changing the encumbrance mechanic from abstract as it is now (Str in Burden/kg) to a detailed system where you work out what each Strength point means in kgs.

As it stands the average person (Strength 7) can carry 7 Burden/kg of items, this is not a lot and nowhere near what a soldier carries in the field if converted to a detailed encumbrance system.