Question on Errata

The errata states: "Page 153, Advancing Skills and Reactions. The descriptive text is misleading in stating that you may only spend a certain number of picks per advancement. The limitations are per advancement, not pick. Thus, a character may increase a maximum of two professional skills, one non-professional skill, two favored reactions, or one non-favored reaction per advancement (provided they have enough picks)."

The constraint on skills seems pretty counter-intuitive. In the first place, using the common assumption that an advancement represents about a year of normal field duty, is it really reasonable that a character could go an entire year without materially improving his competence in more than a couple of areas of professional specialty, and/or a single hobby? In the second place, since advancement picks can't be held over, doesn't the constraint force players to take a lot of skill specialties and/or inflate their favored reaction and/or buy lots of edges, to get rid of the "extra" one or two picks remaining after they've spent on skills?

I'm trying to understand the logic of the errata, and it just flat-out escapes me. The PG as written seems much more reasonable: you can't put more than two picks into a single skill in a single advancement, but there's no overall limit to the number of picks you can spend on skills in a single advancement.

You're right. The wording is a little confusing in both cases. What I would suggest is substituting "level" for "pick" in the text. Thus you can increase any single professional skill by two levels per advancement, any non-professional skill by one level, your vaored reaction by two levels, and any nonfavored reaction by one level. There should be no limit to the number of skills you can increase except for the five picks each advancement provides.

So you should be able to improve, say, two professional skills by two levels each and one by one level. Or improve a nonprofessional skill and a non-favored reaction by one level each.

At least, that's my take on it.

As a side note, I'm sure the errata notation made sense to me when I added it, but now... Not so much. ::sheepish grin::

I cleaned it up a bit while I was redoing the errata; I should be able to post that shortly, once I finish cleaning up the FAQ. Essentially, we read it the same way. I'll post the relevent bits on this issue tonight when I get home.

Here are the rephrased errata lines in question. Hope this reads like it's supposed to.... ;)

Page 153, Professional Skill Level. Replace the last sentence of the descriptive text with the following: “Each time your character advances, you may advance professional skills by up to two levels each.”

Page 153, Nonprofessional Skill Level. Replace the last sentence of the descriptive text with the following: “Each time your character advances, you may advance nonprofessional skills by one level each.”

Page 153, Favored Reaction. Replace the last sentence of the descriptive text with the following: “Each time your character advances, you may advance your favored reaction by up to two levels.”

Page 153, Nonfavored Reaction. Replace the last sentence of the descriptive text with the following: “Each time your character advances, you may advance a nonfavored reaction by one level each.”

Maybe this is just me being picky, but I think in the lines that refer to the skills, you should probably use the term "rank" instead of "level". Also, you it might be clearer to state "max increase of +1" or "+2" for Reactions since there is no really good term for the value other than as a bonus. I just don't think adding another term ("level") will make it clearer since we already have "ranks" and "picks".

Otherwise, what you've listed is what I've been doing from the beginning.

I think those can be reworded easily enough. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PGoodman13

Here are the rephrased errata lines in question. Hope this reads like it's supposed to.... ;)

---

I'd change that to "For each advancement" or "With each advancement" instead of "Each time your character advances" on the off chance that someone might get multiple advancementys at one time... But that could just be me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GandalfOfBorg

Maybe this is just me being picky, but I think in the lines that refer to the skills, you should probably use the term "rank" instead of "level". Also, you it might be clearer to state "max increase of +1" or "+2" for Reactions since there is no really good term for the value other than as a bonus. I just don't think adding another term ("level") will make it clearer since we already have "ranks" and "picks".

Otherwise, what you've listed is what I've been doing from the beginning.

---

Actually, Patrick's use is consistent with the game style. They're "ranks" in LOTR, but "levels" in Trek...

argh, not even consistant between games... hmm well ive referred to them universally as ranks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GandalfOfBorg

argh, not even consistant between games... hmm well ive referred to them universally as ranks.

---

They aren't the same game though...

The basic system is though and I think an increment to the base skill value should've been referred to with the same term. Use of the word "level" has the same connotation with "advancement" in CODA and those coming from those games could be (justifiably) confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GandalfOfBorg

The basic system is though and I think an increment to the base skill value should've been referred to with the same term. Use of the word "level" has the same connotation with "advancement" in CODA and those coming from those games could be (justifiably) confused.

---

Possibly, but not necessarily. Personally, I'd think that in Trek "ranks" could be just as confusing in a Starfleet setting... (Yes, I'm being obnoxious...;):p)

Yes, well I have to agree with you there, Doug. On the whole, the terms used aren't the best choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GandalfOfBorg

Yes, well I have to agree with you there, Doug. On the whole, the terms used aren't the best choices.

---

True enough, GoB...