Give me your Coda Q's and Feedback (Good and Bad)

[Phantom]

Thanks for the quick replies guys, but I found the info about 5 min after I asked the question. Had to go to work so I was unable to post the I had found it.

[Lancer]

This is from a thread on switching professions (http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread...&threadid=4272):

Originally posted by Calcoran
If I might add a bit of confusion here:

Players Guide p155
Sechok chooses to become an envoy ... he decides to forego advancement as an explorer ... next time Sechok advances, he could chose to re-enter the explorer elite profession by spending another 5 picks. After returning to the profession, he could resume development of explorer skills and abilities ...

So changing back to a former profession is still not free ... does this mean that when you chose in which professions you want to advance, you have to keep your base profession? This doesn't seem right, as in the above example, Sechok has chosen Envoy and Science Officer. Obviously he had already given up the Starship Officer base profession.
So ... how much would the switching back to the base profession cost?

To which Don replied:

Good catch, Calcoran, and I'll check with Ross. Perhaps I simply misunderstood his earlier statement when he and I spoke on this topic.

Don: Have you receive an answer from Ross by now?

[Sho-sa Kurita]

I haven't seen this one mentioned yet --

On table A.1 Movement Actions (p.243), I believe the "Costs" for Jog, Run and Sprint should be 2, F/R, and F/R respectively. This is per the pace descriptions on p.245.

-- Daniel

[Lancer]

Here's another question related to a post from an older thread (http://forum.lotrrpg.net/showthread....&threadid=4294)

Original posted by Doug Burke
Since the only tests that are labeled as "Physical", "Academic", or "Social" are skill tests, it would be safe to assume that the Fit, Friendly, and Thinker Edges (as well as the Dim-Witted, Proud, and Reckless Flaws) only apply to skill tests.

Does that mean that edges like Eidetic Memory, Thinker, Fit, etc. (and the above mentioned Flaws) only apply a modifier to skill tests?
The table on page 100 lists attribute tests and reaction tests in each category of Academic, Physical and Social, as well as skills.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by Sho-sa Kurita
On table A.1 Movement Actions (p.243), I believe the "Costs" for Jog, Run and Sprint should be 2, F/R, and F/R respectively. This is per the pace descriptions on p.245.

I would say you're correct, Daniel. The Cost should be 2, F/R, F/R respectively.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by Lancer
Does that mean that edges like Eidetic Memory, Thinker, Fit, etc. (and the above mentioned Flaws) only apply a modifier to skill tests?
The table on page 100 lists attribute tests and reaction tests in each category of Academic, Physical and Social, as well as skills.

The table on page 100 is correct. I had forgotten that particular table when I made my earlier statement. Logically, if it only applied to skil tests, then it would have said (for example) "all physical skill tests." If I'd given it more thought, I'd have come to that conclusion before I made the statement you quoted...

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Lancer
Don: Have you receive an answer from Ross by now? [/B]

Nope. I pester him nearly daily about it. I've got a preliminary answer but I don't want to share it until I get a definitive one.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Doug Burke
The table on page 100 is correct. I had forgotten that particular table when I made my earlier statement. Logically, if it only applied to skil tests, then it would have said (for example) "all physical skill tests." If I'd given it more thought, I'd have come to that conclusion before I made the statement you quoted...

Now this is the answer I expected, as indeed the table on p.100 wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

And with that answer at hand I have no doubt I will scrap the Eidetic memory edge in any of my games, should I ever narrate a DecTrek game. It's just way too good compared to thinker or the other '+1 to all xxx tests' edges. (+2 instead of +1, applies to physical uses of academic tests as well, and the automatic success at TN5)
And let's not even think of adding a trait upgrade to eidetic memory for a whopping +4 bonus. :shivers at the thought:

Is Eidetic Memory really meant to be that good compared to Thinker?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Nope. I pester him nearly daily about it. I've got a preliminary answer but I don't want to share it until I get a definitive one.

Don, that's no big problem with me. As long as I know you kept the question in mind I am satisfied.
I just brought up this topic because I have a somewhat related question that I don't want to ask yet, just in case it might be clarified along the way, but that one can wait a little longer.

[NHB]

Since this is both as questions and feedback thread I should probably start by saying that I think the new DecTrek is mechanically much nicer than LUGtrek. i also like the fact that almost all illustrations are photos and not drawn graphics.

As for layout and feel of the book, I think my main complaint is that to me it really felt like half a book, since it has no real narrators information in it - I know it wasn't supposed to, since it is a players guide, but I prefer the one big book approach. But taste varies.

I also think the rules could have been presented much more clearly, as I think the many questions about character generation shows.

But what I really wanted to do was not ask some of the questions that have been bothering me. If these questions have been asked and answered before, i apologise, but I haven't been able to find it.


1) Is Eidetic Memory really suppossed to be so good? And if this one slipped through has anybody else found any other obviously broken edges.

2) While I don't have the book in front of me (one of my players wanted to borrow it), I seem to recall that there is a Starship officer ability and a Starship Engineer ability which both affect the value of courage points spent on professional skills - Do these abilities stack, or is the engineer ability just redundant since all starship engineers are also starship officers?

3) Does the Joined Trill ability really give +2 to all knowledge skills. It seems rather excessive compared to Bajorans who get a bonus to just one skills and the like.

4) How exactly does Knowledge: Specific Worldm work. Appearently the actual world is a specialisation of the general Knowledge: Specific world, which means that your Knowledge: Specific World applies to any given world you ever come into contact with. Indeed it seems that the knowledge skills get very broad extremely quickly, especially since everybody will know them as part of their background - The romulan senate just can't keep any secrets from those trill it seems.

5) It would have been nice with a scale indicating how good a given skill level was. It is nice to know if your X specialist really is a specialist, and if you can talk Federation Standard fluently.

6) Which reminds me - Is Federation Standard the native language of humans, or do all species have two languages to invest the racial skills in?

7) Many professions have skills groups as their professional skills, but there is a little *, and a comment that "this is a skill group, one skill is added each time this entry is selected". Since there is no mention of selection regarding professional skills, what does this mean. Are all the skills in the skill group professional skills?

I think that was it for now, but I might be back when i get my book back.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by NHB
2) While I don't have the book in front of me (one of my players wanted to borrow it), I seem to recall that there is a Starship officer ability and a Starship Engineer ability which both affect the value of courage points spent on professional skills - Do these abilities stack, or is the engineer ability just redundant since all starship engineers are also starship officers?

Actualyl, it's the Operations Officer's "Professional Edge" ability that modifies the benefit of Courage Points. And, yes, the wording of that and "Intrepid" do seem to be pretty much the same re: game effects...

3) Does the Joined Trill ability really give +2 to all knowledge skills. It seems rather excessive compared to Bajorans who get a bonus to just one skills and the like.

Yep. it does.

4) How exactly does Knowledge: Specific Worldm work.

It works pretty much the same way that World Knowledge did in Icon. The specialty is the chosen world and the base skill can be a "catch-all" for info on worlds your character has been to or heard of. As always, the Narrator must be pretty strict about whata character can and can't figure out. ("No! Your Trill Diplomat cannot know the floorplan and defenses of the evil Klingon outcast's lair! I don't care what you rolled on Specific World!" )

6) Which reminds me - Is Federation Standard the native language of humans, or do all species have two languages to invest the racial skills in?

That seems to be the assumption, since that's the language listed for Humans in the Species chapter. However, as a Narrator, I would allowthe character to have an additional language to reflect their point of origin (if such seemed needed). For example, Picard would have French as a second native language, and Scotty would have Gaelic.

7) Many professions have skills groups as their professional skills, but there is a little *, and a comment that "this is a skill group, one skill is added each time this entry is selected". Since there is no mention of selection regarding professional skills, what does this mean. Are all the skills in the skill group professional skills?

Yes, they are.

[Phantom]

Ok, something in the Starship Guide has me a little stumped. I'll take the Intrepid-class as example (my favourite class)

Under the tactical it is listed:

Photon Torp Type VI (X2/D)

I read this as 2 type VI tubes with a reliability rating of D. I have that right so far?

Going to the Missile Weapon chart on p141 I see the Type VI as having an OV of 8.
2 (number of tubes)X 8 (OV for Type VI tube)=16 TOV

Now going to chart 9.12 cross reference TOV of 16 gives Pen values of 5/5/5/5/5 (which are right) and Rel of B, which is wrong see Rel D above. Have I missed something, or is this just a bug that needs to be worked out? The problem shows up in all of the SF vessels I looked at.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by Phantom
Have I missed something, or is this just a bug that needs to be worked out?

Actually, you missed one thing. Read the third paragraph on page 142. It states that to determine the reliability of your weapons systems, you total the OOffensive Value for ALL weapons and consult Table 9.12 for the reliability.

You will notice that, with the notable (and mysterious) exception of the Constitution-class, the Reliability for both Beam and Missile Weapons is the same. That's why.

[Phantom]

Thanks. I see now...Now I can't wait for the Starship book to come out. Damn! You guys have done a really good job to get me drawn in like this. So, what is the story with the Connie-class, why are the Rel ratings different?

[Ensign Deconn]

I looked through this thres and couldn't find a question to these.

In the character creation example on pp. 87-88:

* shouldnt the Inquire (Fraternize) skill be +1 and not +2? Since these are two of the five +1 skill picks, and (as I understand it) the only area where you can actually pick a specialization, wouldnt 1 pick go for the +1 and the other for the fraternize specialty? Or am I missing something?

* the example says that the Trader professional development package provides Appraisal +2, which added to the +1 from personal development, makes +3. The actual package, however, lists the appraisal add-on as +3. Which is right? And since it gives you the option to choose a specialty, you can just decide to not do it, right?

The three major criticisms I have with this example is that:

* the species skills part of the process was skipped

* the subskills chosen (streetwise, culture, simple weapons, etc.)were not designated as subskills of larger group skills liike Enterprise and Knowledge. Wouldn't it have just been a lot easier to list these subskills as skills. It would have avoided a lot of confusion.

* the whole concept of adding different specialties and using the total for both disparate specialties, to me makes no sense. Is this the only time this can happen?

Thanks for listening

DC