This is a thread to collect items that need to be added to the official errata. Including missing / improperly referenced / misplaced tables, traits or rules.
Printable View
This is a thread to collect items that need to be added to the official errata. Including missing / improperly referenced / misplaced tables, traits or rules.
I'm looking at NG right now (but the error is also in PG.)
NG pg 96 right column first full paragraph: It refers to table 6.26 which shows how fast you gain fatigue based on level of activity, not rate of recovery (based on fatigue level as the text implies.)
An answer from Decipher...
Quote:
I think a column may have been unintentionally dropped. However, based off the description given in the same paragraph you quoted, I would suggest using the Base Time column in Table 6.26 to recover. For example:
Exhausted to Fatigued: 4 hours
Fatigued to Tired: 2 hours
Tired to Winded: 1 hour
Winded to Energetic: 10 minutes
TOTAL Time from Exhausted to Energetic: 7 hours, 10 minutes. Or you can juust round up to 8 hours. :)
Thjanks,
Doug Burke
Net Rep
Decipher RPG & Miniatures Division
NG pg 97 "Iitiative: Who Acts?"
No mention how to break ties.
Character with highest Quickness rating goes first then dice off if there are still ties?
I break in favor of the players over NPCs. If between players, go with the guy with the hihest reaction trait.
I have to agree with that. Phaser combat is too deadly to do otherwise.Quote:
Originally posted by qerlin
I break in favor of the players over NPCs. If between players, go with the guy with the hihest reaction trait.
Let me AOL that :).
At the end of the description on pg 102 NG, it says that this action increases TN of the next Sensor action by +5?!?!
This implies that if a PC attempts this action over multiple rounds, it becomes more difficult!??
According to our Decipher Net-rep:
"I believe that means any sensor test against another target, because you are focusing your sensors so precisely."
On NG page 142, under "Deflector Shields" it says:
"You may increase the base threshold by +1 for an additional cost..."
Unfortunatly the cost is not specified.
Quote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
Yes it's 1:1. This has been clairified in the Starships book.
From another thread...
http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?threadid=4567
Quote:
Originally posted by Jinx
The K't'inga and D-7 ship descriptions both list Battle Tested as a trait, but the description of Battle Tested on page 143 of the NG says the trait is only available to individual ships. So is this trait for individual ships or for classes of ships? Right now I'm taking this trait to be for individual ships only, and that its mention with the Klingon ships is just an indicator that most Klingon crews tend to be battle tested.
Along the same lines, the text portions of the ship descriptions mention specific examples of each ship (such as the Enterpise) and give their individual traits. Their are two traits used in these descriptions that aren't listed among the starship edges or flaws; Famous and Infamous. Should these be treated as starship equivalents of the character traits Fame and Infamy, or should they be handled differently?
One last thing, no ship is listed as having any cargo transporters. Was this an omission, or do none of the ships actually have cargo transporters?
Thanks Jinx and Doug!Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Burke
Battle-Tested: This seems to have been a mistake. ISTR the Constitution was listed as having it as well, though... :( Maybe Don or Matt will be able to correct me on that...
Famous/Infamous: These Traits were dropped from the NG Starships chapter, but I have been assured they will be returning in the Starships Book.
Cargo Trasnporters: Probably an oversight. Assume each ship has the same number of cargo transporters as it has personnel and emergency ones.
Cthulhu --
Many of the starship questions have already been answered in threads in the Coda Utopia Planitia forum, including yours on the deflector shields (I should know, I asked it :) ). In that case, they've clarified that each point of threshold costs 1 space.
That's great! I appreciate your input. I actually came on this last night while designing my first ship. I did see it in the other forum, but I did not recognize anyone from Decipher (Matt C. or Doug ) give an answer for it. Did that thread get an official answer from Decipher?Quote:
Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Cthulhu --
Many of the starship questions have already been answered in threads in the Coda Utopia Planitia forum, including yours on the deflector shields (I should know, I asked it :) ). In that case, they've clarified that each point of threshold costs 1 space.
Anyway, point of this thread is to collect errors in the books to be added to the official errata thread when Decipher gives official errata for them. So recounting questions that have appeared in other threads is fair game.
Actually... I think as far as Starship stuff is concerned, Don should be a major authority since he wrote most of it... didn't you, Don?
While on the subject, where has Ross (Isaacs) been?
Charles
I'm letting Cthulhu have his moment of fun. Yes, I wrote the material--when Doug posts an "official" answer he consults with me on the starship stuff.Quote:
Originally posted by ImperialOne
Actually... I think as far as Starship stuff is concerned, Don should be a major authority since he wrote most of it... didn't you, Don?
People are welcome to ignore my rulings if they don't feel they carry any weight.
Busy writing new material for Cthulhu to create errata for in a few months. :)Quote:
While on the subject, where has Ross (Isaacs) been?
Thanks, I am kind of having fun with this. I hope someone besides me finds this useful.Quote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
I'm letting Cthulhu have his moment of fun. Yes, I wrote the material--when Doug posts an "official" answer he consults with me on the starship stuff.
People are welcome to ignore my rulings if they don't feel they carry any weight.
Busy writing new material for Cthulhu to create errata for in a few months. :)
Didn't mean to slight you Don, I didn't read the credits on my copy of the books, till I read your comment. :D
I'll try to be more informed before I make an a** of myself in public again.
BTW, if you're interested in a nitpicky proofreader for any of your future work, just let me know. I'd be happy to help. :)
PG (pg 191) says: "Long range sensors work at a range of 5 light years (for high resolution scans)..."
If we use the range chart as given on page 110 of NG, that gives our operator a -8 @ a range of 1 light second ( about 300,000 km ) ?
At a range of 5 light years, that gives us a whopping -943488002 to our roll!?!?!?
So this begs the question, what are ranges for sensors?
I think it can be implied from the PG that 5 ly is long range, so we could rule that all combat is at point blank ( thus the way the ship stats are given.) we could make a guess for medium range.. 1 ly?
Since the PG goes on to talk about use of long range sensors at medium/low resolution at ranges of 12-17 ly so these could be assumed to be Extended / Extended+ ranges?
in summary I think the ranges may very well be something like this:
Point Blank ( 300,000 km )
Short ( 0.1 ly )
Medium ( 1 ly )
Long ( 5 ly )
Extended ( 12 ly )
Extended+ ( +5 ly )
Thanks Don.Quote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
...You’ll see this one a lot and I grimace every time. Before “point blank” there was “close.” Later, when we unified everything over to the PG ranges, some of those instances of “close” were never properly hunted down and renamed.
So, any reference to “close” in the NG text actually refers to “point blank.”
Well, I for one find it useful.Quote:
Originally posted by MightyCthulhu
Thanks, I am kind of having fun with this. I hope someone besides me finds this useful.
I'll try to be more informed before I make an a** of myself in public again.
As for making an ass of one’s self in public: don’t worry about it—I do it every day here. :)
Re: Shield Threshold
Yep, I posted in that thread, confirming that it was a 1:1 ratio.
Re: Sensor ranges
Apples and oranges, MC. Table 7.7 "Starship Range Increments" is actually for ranges in starship combat only. They have no bearing on the full range of the ship's sensors. Especially the long-range sensors, which you quoted from the PG. But then, Don already covered that in another thread. :)
The Tables titled Degree of Success (p.104 PG, p.81 NG) differ, in that the former list a marginal success as 0-4 above TN and has no entry for a Superior Success.
If the table in the NG is correct, what about the damage bonus to unarmed attacks from a superior success? The description of the skill only talks about a complete and extraordinary success and ignores the superior success.
It occurred to me upon a second reading of the Players guide that many item I thought were errata are not.
There are numerous references to specializations of skills throughout the PG that are not included in the descriptions of the skills themselves. On a second reading I realized that the skills list sample specializations, not *all* specializations. It did give me an uncomfortable feeling to be able to look up those referenced specializations. I kept thinking I was missing something...
On Pg. 146 of the Narrator's Guide, the Constitution-class write-up states that the Enterprise was the first ship to undergo refitting from 2270 to 2273 and then saved Earth from V'Ger in 2273.
On Page 16 of the NG, in the Eras Chart it states the Movie Era started in 2271.
While the Player's Guide timeline does not state one way or the other, it does appear to be trying to remain consistant with other point's in LUG's timeline.
LUG's timeline used the conjectural date that the Star Trek Chronology uses so I am wondering if the write-up for that portion of the Constitution-class is in error or if a decision was made to use another date for the events of TMP.
Regards,
CKV.
I believe a mention of mid-2270 as the date Kirk's first five-year mission ended was given in a Voyager episode. So, to have room enough for Kirk to have not "logged a star hour in over two years" (as Decker stated in TMP), that would necessitate pushing TMP back to 2273. :)
Anyone have any idea which Voyager episode this may have been?
Regards,
CKV.
I did some digging and found out that the episode was "Q2."
Thanks Doug.
Now to just find that episode among the masses. :)
Regards,
CKV.
It was the one where Q puts his son aboard the Voyager to be rasied by Janeway.
I have it. I just have to find it. :)
Regards,
CKV.
Season 7, episode 19, origally aired the third week of April, 2001, if any of that helps :)
Player's Guide, page 89, Starfleet "Brat" personal development package:
Pick 1 Skill: Administration (Federation) +2, Computer Use +2, any one Science skill +2
Wouldn't Administration (Federation) +2 count as three skill picks, not two?
Yes, it would.
And since that is the only example of a skill listed with a specialty in the Personal Development Packages, I would suggest just dropping the specialty and making it Administration +2. :)
Personnaly, i think the winner could be the one with the higher quickness score... but it's me!Quote:
Originally posted by Greg Smith
I have to agree with that. Phaser combat is too deadly to do otherwise.
And for de "deadly phasor" you could use , in your game, a special props
look this http://www.simsherbrooke.com/strpg/props/psd.pdf
Theko
I go for highest attribute in HTH. I do give the players the slight edge in a tie in a phaser fight. Of course, when the enemy rolls higher its just tough.
As for personal shield generators, I don't think they are really Trek. Besides, I like the combat to be deadly, to persuade my players to think twice about getting into a fight.
First of all, please excuse my English, I am in fact French-speaking... :eek:
"I do give the players the slight edge in a tie in a phaser fight."Quote:
Originally posted by Greg Smith
I go for highest attribute in HTH. I do give the players the slight edge in a tie in a phaser fight. Of course, when the enemy rolls higher its just tough.
As for personal shield generators, I don't think they are really Trek. Besides, I like the combat to be deadly, to persuade my players to think twice about getting into a fight.
I'm giving you credit for this... phasor is really destructive, so giving an edge to player can save the game!
" As for personal shield generators, I don't think they are really Trek."
First -The technology of Star trek allows use of personnal shielding. in exemple in the PlayersGuide of Star Trek TNG RPG by Last unicorn on page 109 They allow strafleet personnal to wear Personnal Force field (in a arm shield form).
Second -I made PSG as an alien artifact difficult to obtain. In this thinking. it could be a reward at the end of a scene or it could be an artifact worn by an arch-enemie close to players raising the difficulty to eliminate him.
Third- These PSG are not too powerful. They are balanced, neither too powerful nor too weak. I compare them to magic rings of protection of D&D's RPG...
In fact, I have created the images in function that they are of a technology different from major races of the Alpha and Beta quadrant. In brief I have modified the Dart Vador's belt... :D
My experience as narrator dictates me to give players "toys" from time to time, uncommon or special things, it differentiates them of their colleagues non-player.
[b/]Quote:
Originally posted by Theko
[B]First of all, please excuse my English, I am in fact French-speaking... :eek:
Your English is a heck of a lot better than my French Theko.
Quote:
First -The technology of Star trek allows use of personnal shielding. in exemple in the PlayersGuide of Star Trek TNG RPG by Last unicorn on page 109 They allow strafleet personnal to wear Personnal Force field (in a arm shield form).
Just because LUG did it, doesn't meean I like it. By and large LUG's material was excellent. But I didn't like timeships, mercenary bands or personal forcefields.
Now that's a much better idea. I forsee an Iconian treasure horde. :) Of course, once they are used up, they will never be able to recharge them. {Evil Narrator Grin :D }Quote:
Second -I made PSG as an alien artifact difficult to obtain. In this thinking. it could be a reward at the end of a scene or it could be an artifact worn by an arch-enemie close to players raising the difficulty to eliminate him.
Now I'm going to have to go back and reread your stuff. My players my just get these for a time of desperate need.Quote:
Third- These PSG are not too powerful. They are balanced, neither too powerful nor too weak. I compare them to magic rings of protection of D&D's RPG
In fact, I have created the images in function that they are of a technology different from major races of the Alpha and Beta quadrant. In brief I have modified the Dart Vador's belt... :D
My experience as narrator dictates me to give players "toys" from time to time, uncommon or special things, it differentiates them of their colleagues non-player.
According to the entry on Pg. 183 of the player's guide the 23rd century disruptor pistol has settings 1, 2, and 5. As the 23rd century phasers section on the previous page lists Phaser I having settings of 1, 2, 5, 6, & 8 and Phaser II has 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, & 10. For some reason I have trouble believing that the Klingon disruptor pistol can't be set to kill.
Also there is no entry for disruptors in Table 10.3 on Pg. 181 of the player's guide.
That's a good point, James. Especially considering the... ahem! ...demotion of Kruge's gunner in ST3. I suggest adding Setting 8 to the list of possible settings. :)
I thought abouit adding 8 but I also thought about adding 10. Do you think the disruptor pistol should be the equivalent of Phaser I or Phaser II?
I was thinking 8 because ti will vaporize a huamnoid, but not cut through walls. I don't see Klingons wanting more power than it takes to fry a body. But that's me. :)
Yeah, I hadn't thought about it like that. We'll see which way Patrick decides it in our first session this Wednesday.
Thanks for the input. :)
I know the thing will have a setting 8, but I'm still not sure about 10. I wouldn't hold my breath.