Player Guide Errata & Typos

I wanted to see if there will be a useful forum to note typos or other errata. Leave suggestions or clarifications to other threads.

To this end, I suggest each post be titled by Page # and Location reference (i.e. table or column/paragraph) followed by the typo/error.

For example:

Page 2/Playtesters: Don Moppin should be Mappin, right?

Page 181/Archaic Weapons Table Entry: crossbow entry listed twice

Will this be useful for anyone... Decipher? Perhaps incorporable for a second printing of the PG or even the Limited Edition.

Charles

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImperialOne
I wanted to see if there will be a useful forum to note typos or other errata. Leave suggestions or clarifications to other threads.

---

Errata always useful! Want me to upload my massive list? :D

Quote:

---

Page 2/Playtesters: Don Moppin should be Mappin, right?

---

Damn him! Always getting all the credit! ;)

Quote:

---

Page 181/Archaic Weapons Table Entry: crossbow entry listed twice

---

As George pointed out that's the special repeating crossbow... :)

Quote:

---

Perhaps incorporable for a second printing of the PG or even the Limited Edition.

---

Second printings--the LE pages have already been printed, TMK.

One of the things that I have done is skip ahead and look at the damage effects, especially phaser settings >8. I vaguely remember a thread on this board of TrekRPGnet in which it is indicated the Kill/Disinitegrate effect at settings >8, which I verified on Page 183.
However, the "Kill*" damage effect listed for phaser settings 9 and up (on Pg 183) have that asterick next to it, lumping it into the same reference to the Appendix on "Stun Effects" on Page 251 (Table A.14: Stun Effects). Yet, IIRC based on the spirit of the aforementioned thread, the Kill result doesn't allow for any save (as opposed to the stun settings).
Will someone of Command Rank authority clarify this for me... am I correct?
If so, do you think this falls under the category of "Typo" (superfluous asterick)... or needs further clarification (perhaps in the PG's second printing).
:cool:

If we did that, we'd have to rip apart LUG books. I'm not sure how anyone would feel about that ;)

Yet again I am somewhat confused. Is the ST PG out yet? I was at my "local" gaming store today and they no new info. Has Dec. added stealth shipping to its stealth marketing?

Welcome to Canada dude :)

In a blod move Decipher decided to ship straight from the printers to the distributors in Canada (as the printer, Quebecor is here in Montreal) but they claim Quebecor screwed up and only shipped to half the distributors that were supposed to get it on Monday. Those that got it had preorders, and possibly some extra order stock, but not enough to go around. Quebecor is supposed to send the rest on Wed or Thursday.

Gotta love the compentancy of the Middle-Middle man ;)

It's funny to think that thousands of PGs are in a location that is a 5 minutes drive from where I live... now where did I put my ski mask and my crowbar? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImperialOne
However, the "Kill*" damage effect listed for phaser settings 9 and up (on Pg 183) have that asterick next to it, lumping it into the same reference to the Appendix on "Stun Effects" on Page 251 (Table A.14: Stun Effects). Yet, IIRC based on the spirit of the aforementioned thread, the Kill result doesn't allow for any save (as opposed to the stun settings).

---

Well, on page 251, under "Stun, Kill, an Disintegration Effects", it clearly states that "when set to accomplish these effects, the weapon does not inflict damage normally, but instead initiates a reaction test to determine the final outcome of the attack." Unfortunately, the remaining text in the section (and the accompanying table) deal only with Stun damage. So what type of reaction test, and what the TN would be are still up in the air until I can get an official answer from TPTB. But it is being looked into.

Thanks to the quick response, though we still await an answer from TPTB... my initial take is that there is no save for the Kill effect.... in which case, some clarification (and asterick removal) is in order:D

Ross' notes on how hand phasers work from 3/26/2002:
Perhaps this will give us some insight until TPTB enlighten us.

Ross speaketh:

Hand Phasers
How do hand phasers work?

One of the first things Owen Seyler and I agreed upon when working on the technology chapter was that the old Icon System way of handling phaser damage was clunky and dumb. It was hard to keep track of stun damage vs. real damage and what's the point of 120d6 damage?

So, here's how it works. The stun settings stun you for a variable number of rounds depending on the setting. No damage is caused to the character. They just fall down unconscious. Think of it as a wand of sleep spells. =)

For the middle settings, the phaser causes variable points of damage based on the setting. Works just like in the Icon System.

For the higher, disintegrate settings, you get hit, you die. Doesn't matter what your wound points are. Doesn't matter if it's vaporize setting 13 or 14. There is no rolling damage. Think of it as a wand of instant death. Whether you glow blue and disappear or glow green and disappear is purely a story consideration. =)

And for Enterprise you can just eliminate those pesky "middle settings" on your phasers. "This ones 'stun' and this ones 'kill'"


......
Charles

I'm going to try to reach the esteemed Mr. Isaacs on the phone today to clear up a number of little rule questions that have cropped up. I've got a good idea of the answers already, but I want to run them by "the Man." :cool:

More...later. :)

Sure, post your typos here. Including a page number would help me identify the problem.

As for the Kill* entry, there is no reaction test to keep from being disintegrated. You can shrug off stun effects, but not rock exploding effects. As far as I understand, there is no reaction test for the Kill* setting. The asterisk may be a hold over from an earlier edition of the rules.

Dan Moppin worked hard playtesting the PG, and I think he deserves the recognition.

Thanks Ross for being so attentive to the Forum. If you or Don are aware, will there be an errata/clarification listing (like they do for their CCGs) at the Decipher website or will theyjust be incorporated in the next printing (when would that be?).

Charles

My understanding is that there will be both a FAQ and errata pages up on the Decipher website "soon."

I've put a read-only thread with all the 'official' rules questions (and answers) here.

Please continue to pose questions and I will update this master thread as new information becomes available!

I can't seem to find the amount of damage done in an unarmed attack. Am I just missing it or is that a boo-boo? I looked in the skills, appendix, and weapons charts.

Administration (especially the Starship version) is a major prereq for the Command Officer elite profession as well as many others.

It isn't on the skill list and there is no description of it in the skills section.

Allen

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllenS
Administration (especially the Starship version) is a major prereq for the Command Officer elite profession as well as many others.

It isn't on the skill list and there is no description of it in the skills section.

Allen

---

I have been corrected on this; it is under "enterprise" skills on page 113. sorry for the confusion there.

Allen

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
I can't seem to find the amount of damage done in an unarmed attack. Am I just missing it or is that a boo-boo? I looked in the skills, appendix, and weapons charts.

---

Page 250! Also added to the official list! :D

Hopefully the typos/errata will be few... the only real glaring omission thus far seems to be the unarmed combat damage.

What are the chances that these corrections can be made in time for the LE version (is it really done already)?

Does anyone at Decipher dare to venture a guess as to when a second printing may be done/anticipated?

I think it is really superb that this board was right on top of things, it appears to be the source for breaking news & information:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImperialOne
Hopefully the typos/errata will be few... the only real glaring omission thus far seems to be the unarmed combat damage.

---

What omission? It's on page 250. It's there!

I think I've spotted a typo. Page102, table 6.5. The modifiers for memory loss make it easier to perform acadamic skills.

I know, my bad. I just kept looking for it and didn't see it. I think the evil Dan Moppin actually used a traverse phase inducer to release nanites to alter the molecular structure of all books to bring that text in from a subspace atomic quantum reality.

I saw Don's newest two entries into the Errata and thought the damages weren't listed.

Mea culpa.

Don, the time stamp for the errata list doesn't update itself everytime a new entry is added.

Drat!

Those modifers should be plusses, not minuses. There was a time when this chart modified your dice roll, not your target number (in which case it makes sense).

Ross was quoted:

Quote:

---

So, here's how it works. The stun settings stun you for a variable number of rounds depending on the setting. No damage is caused to the character. They just fall down unconscious. Think of it as a wand of sleep spells. =)

---

Although for the game I am sure it works fine, wasn't there a line in ST VI about phasers on heavy stun at close range harming a person? No biggie, just wondering...

One thing I noticed about the Counselor Elite Profession. It requires, among other things, Social Science 4+ (if you don't acquire it through the Starship Duty ability), but the counselor profession doesn't have Social Science as a class skill...

Was this intentional, and what was the reasoning?

Page 190. Galaxy Class Specifications.
12 type-X phasers not 11.
The 12th is on the stardrive section and is covered when docked
with the saucer. The secondary torpedo launcher is in the saucer
and is also covered when docked.

Right, I understood that part. My question was specficially to the lack of Social Science as a professional skill for counselors.

I made a mixed-species counselor as a test character yesterday, and my only concern is that the flexibility in that system seems to make for extremely high attributes. Was this an intentional effect?

Example:

The character is a Betazoid/Vulcan, with Betazoid being her dominant species (based on a friend's character from an online game).

I decided ahead of time that I would take the Strength and Intellect from her Vulcan side, given that they are that race's strong suits. I originally rolled the stats for the counselor, and even without getting a roll above 8 for the Vulcan side, my lowest attribute was 7 (in vitality). The counselor had 9's in everything else except Presence (12).

That's mild compared to what I could do with assigning attributes. Since I knew that the Vulcan dominant attributes would be Strength and Intellect, I basically considered the rest "throw away" stats. I maxed out Str and Int with the 8 bonus points, giving the character a 14 Str and a 13 Int (by virtue of her species bonuses).

Using the same method with the Betazoid part, the 4 and 5 went to the Vulcan dominant stats, with Pers and Perc getting the 10 and 9 respectively. Maxing out those two attributes to 12 and adding two to vitality and one to agility gave me an 8 Agl, 9 Vit, 13 Prs (by virtue of her species bonus) and a 12 Per.

So, her picked attributes would be: 14 str, 8 agl, 13 int, 9 vit, 13 prs, 12 per.

Is this an accurate representation of putting together a mixed-species character's attributes (given that species bonuses are allowed to raise a character's attributes over 12)?

>>One thing I noticed about the Counselor Elite Profession. It requires, among other things, Social Science 4+ (if you don't acquire it through the Starship Duty ability), but the counselor profession doesn't have Social Science as a class skill... <<

You ignore the elite profession requirements if you're creating a starship counselor out of the gate. In other words, since Counselor is an elite profession, you can be a Vulcan Merchant and try to become a ship's Counselor. In this case, you need to demonstrate to Starfleet that you have some kind of social science skill before they'll let you become a Starship Counselor.

However, you do not learn social science as a part of your counselor training. If you're setting out to create a counselor, you choose Starship Officer, automatically get the Starship Duty professional ability (which allows you to ignore elite prereqs), and then choose the counselor EP.

The short answer to your question is: Yes, that was intentional.

>>Is this an accurate representation of putting together a mixed-species character's attributes (given that species bonuses are allowed to raise a character's attributes over 12)?<<

Yep. That looks right to me.

Ross, you already clarified the error on table 6.5 Academic Test Modifiers. How 'bout 6.4 and 6.6:

p.102/Table 6.4 Social Test Modifiers
It is my guess that "Test Result" should be "Test Modifier" and that all the modifiers should have their signs reversed, with "TN" added. True?

p.103/Table 6.6 Psionic Test Modifiers
Same as above for the Range Modifers column?

Question: on p.136, the Psionic edge says that "Your starting level in this attribute is 4." OK, no prob. However, over on p.146/Assigning Reactions it states "Lovek's Intellect 10 gives him a +2 modifier, compared to the 0 modifier from Perception. He chooses Intellect as the governing attribute and begins with Psi 2." What did I miss?

Minor errata: p.71/Table 3.10 Ops Officer Skills - the Engineer officer's professional skills....

Liking the book so far...

-- Daniel

Quote:

---

Yep. That looks right to me.

---

Okay, cool (Narrators beware... ;) ). So, you expect the mixed-species characters to be a slight cut above full blooded characters as far as attributes are concerned?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Okay, cool (Narrators beware... ;) ). So, you expect the mixed-species characters to be a slight cut above full blooded characters as far as attributes are concerned?

---

Clearly if you optimize your character as such (e.g. the pick method and setup 'throwaway' scores), then yes.

If you're shooting to min/max your character, a mixed-species background is the way to do it. If you use the random method (my preference), you could roll really bad, too. That doesn't mean that mixed-species are inherently weaker, though.

I don't think the warning should be for Narrator's to look out for mixed-species characters as a source of abuse, I think the warning should be for Narrators to look out for players that will try to abuse playing a mixed-species character.

Don, this is too funny to let it slip! :D

You're bumping a sticky thread! :D

Dunno, put 'Update' or something else... I can't avoid to have a laugh at it each time I open it... ;)

Quote:

---

If you use the random method (my preference), you could roll really bad, too. That doesn't mean that mixed-species are inherently weaker, though.

---

I agree. My question was meant specifically for choosing attributes; I should have been clearer about that.

Quote:

---

I think the warning should be for Narrators to look out for players that will try to abuse playing a mixed-species character.

---

As was my intent. :) Thanks for the insight. Is it safe to say that mixed-species characters, in general, have a slight advantage with regard to their attributes?

1. I,m assuming this is just a printing error.

The Bajoran Starfleet Ops Officer archetype appears to have a green collar and cuffs.

Just another thought...

Has anybody tried to photocopy the character sheets yet? To me they look like they will come out very dark and hard to read.

I just downloaded Don's pdf file. Muuuch better. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir
Don, this is too funny to let it slip! :D

You're bumping a sticky thread! :D

---

I'm 'bumping' it not to move it up the list but to "re-add" it as a new thread to people who use the 'Search for new threads' option. That way the thread appears as updated to them.

There's a method to my madness. Trust me. ;)

>>p.102/Table 6.4 Social Test Modifiers
It is my guess that "Test Result" should be "Test Modifier" and that all the modifiers should have their signs reversed, with "TN" added. True? <<

No. If you're trying to influence someone loyal or devoted to you, you get to add +10 to your dice result.

>>p.103/Table 6.6 Psionic Test Modifiers
Same as above for the Range Modifers column? <<

No. If you're at point blank range, you get to add +2 to your dice result.

>>Question: on p.136, the Psionic edge says that "Your starting level in this attribute is 4." OK, no prob. However, over on p.146/Assigning Reactions it states "Lovek's Intellect 10 gives him a +2 modifier, compared to the 0 modifier from Perception. He chooses Intellect as the governing attribute and begins with Psi 2." What did I miss? <<

Not something you missed. Something we missed. Lovek starts with Psi 4 and gets nothing from Intellect or Perception.

>>Minor errata: p.71/Table 3.10 Ops Officer Skills - the Engineer officer's professional skills.... <<

Nice catch. =)