Mea Culpa... Errata the Errata

Does anything from this excerpt of the Errata strike you as wrong?

Page 66, Starship Officer: Capable professional ability. Last sentence shoudl read "When performing actions in excess of their action allowance, starship officers suffer only a -3 to professional skill tests, rather than the +5 test penalty that normally applies." (Note: This crops up in other places as well, such as the Staff description on page 185. Anything that notes the multiple action penalty is lowered from +10 to +5 should instead read that the penalty is lowered from +5 to +3.)


Is the reference to "-3" actually a '+3'?

Someone... Don, Ross, Doug...?


Charles

bump

No need to Bump Imperial One. Try to give some time for the correct people to get online to actually read the thread. More than 2 hours, and less than a Day will usually suffice on these boards.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImperialOne
Is the reference to "-3" actually a '+3'?

---

Nope. Multiple action penalties are just that--penalties. They lower your die roll by five per action beyond your base allotment.

I blame Doug. He typed it in. :)

He has been shot with a phaser set on "shazam!" for his error and lack of perfection. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Nope. Multiple action penalties are just that--penalties. They lower your die roll by five per action beyond your base allotment.

I blame Doug. He typed it in. :)

He has been shot with a phaser set on "shazam!" for his error and lack of perfection. ;)

---

You might want to rethink the shooting there, O Webmaster Type Person. I thought the action penalty was a penalty to the Target Number (which would be a +5 or a +3, depending on whether you had this Edge or not), not a penalty to the dice roll (which would be a -5 or a -3, ditto). Either way achieves the penalty; I think the problem was in the lack of consistency.

In other words, Imperial One might be right. The -3 quite possibly should be a +3.

For purposes of reference to those coming in late: A TN penalty is typically assessed if the task itself is somehow more difficult, such as the control panel being in Klingon when you don't read Klingon. It's a reflection of difficulty that comes, not from you being somehow impaired, but by things outside of yourself making things difficult. A dice roll penalty is typically assessed when the problem is not the outside world, but you yourself. Firing a phaser when drunk, for instance. At least that's how I've always seen and used it.

*whew* I knew all those years of playing Shadowrun would come in handy some day....

Nope. No rethinking required. First, I refer you to page 244 of the PG for more detail.

Here's generally how it works:

- Things that you (the character) control, that result in a penalty or a bonus, are reflected in a negative and positive modifier respectively. Hence, if you decide to take a third action, you take a -5 action penalty to your next roll. If you decide to aim your phaser, you receive a bonus of +3 to your roll. Your TN is not modified.

- Things that are outside your control work a little differently. These effects modify your TN, not your roll. (Although, in essence, the end result is the same.) Hence, if someone is dodging your attack, something you have no control over, their Dodge action raises your TN to hit, making it more difficult. If the target dives behind some cover, they raise your TN to hit them.

Narrators control these external effects and set the TN. Players then modify their die rolls appropriately to reflect their actions. So I respectfully submit that their is a method to the madness and that the rules are consistent as designed. If you spot something different, let me know. ;)

And no, the penalty is -3 in question, not +3. Imperial One (and the entry in the errata that I've corrected), was incorrect.

Didn't mean to be impatient... I know how the boards move:)

+ or -, it doen't matter to me... we just need to be consistent as to whether it is a modifier to the dice roll (- for penalty) or a penalty to the TN (+).

Charles

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Nope. No rethinking required. First, I refer you to page 244 of the PG for more detail.

---

My book's 20 miles away...this is why I was guessing and basing it on years of experience in another system entirely. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PGoodman13
My book's 20 miles away...this is why I was guessing and basing it on years of experience in another system entirely. :)

---

What?!? I keep mine with me 24 hours a day to answer these life-or-death questions! You never know when you're going to be out to dinner with the family and someone comes up and asks you what the pick cost is for raising a non-professional skill! ;)

Well, I did indeed catch a typo/errata in the Errata.

Don, the clarification from your previous post might actualy be a useful clarification in the Errata thread. Thanks much.

Charles
P.S. My book is in my briefcase:D


Don said...
(Nope. No rethinking required. First, I refer you to page 244 of the PG for more detail.

Here's generally how it works:

- Things that you (the character) control, that result in a penalty or a bonus, are reflected in a negative and positive modifier respectively. Hence, if you decide to take a third action, you take a -5 action penalty to your next roll. If you decide to aim your phaser, you receive a bonus of +3 to your roll. Your TN is not modified.

- Things that are outside your control work a little differently. These effects modify your TN, not your roll. (Although, in essence, the end result is the same.) Hence, if someone is dodging your attack, something you have no control over, their Dodge action raises your TN to hit, making it more difficult. If the target dives behind some cover, they raise your TN to hit them.

Narrators control these external effects and set the TN. Players then modify their die rolls appropriately to reflect their actions. So I respectfully submit that their is a method to the madness and that the rules are consistent as designed. If you spot something different, let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
I blame Doug. He typed it in. :)

---

Yep. It's all my fault. What can I say? I just get confused soemtimes. :)

Quote:

---

He has been shot with a phaser set on "shazam!" for his error and lack of perfection. ;)

---

And now I'm trying to figure out how to get rid of this red shirt with lightning bolt on the chest and that froofy-looking white cape with little gold bows on it... :D