T5.09 Errata Discussion Thread
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
thalassogen
SOC-12
Yes, please! I commented on this (animal damage) several times but never got an answer.
Scouts per page 48 (entitlements) do not get retirement, but on pages 49 and 59 the muster out tables for money have a 2x retirement reward. According to page 696 Scouts earn the same wages as Spacer and Soldier Officers. I propose that scouts should be awarded retirements of 3,000 Cr per term of service (minimum of 4 terms) as per Spacer and Soldier officers.
Speaking of entitlements, living Congressional Medal of Honor recipients receive a pension of $1,259 (2014) above and beyond a military pension or other benefits, in addition they receive a 10% increase to their pension among other benefits. Should the SEH and / or the *SEH* have a similar benefit?
Regarding the wage tables they show military wages adjusted by rank, should rank also affect retirement?
Speaking of entitlements, living Congressional Medal of Honor recipients receive a pension of $1,259 (2014) above and beyond a military pension or other benefits, in addition they receive a 10% increase to their pension among other benefits. Should the SEH and / or the *SEH* have a similar benefit?
Regarding the wage tables they show military wages adjusted by rank, should rank also affect retirement?
Just my opinion but if lifting bodies are supposed to be superior to airframes then they should get the benefits of fins as well. Included for free does not mean you have to have them though.
On that note on page 290 it has a + under airframe for wheels, page 276 states under Airframe Versus Winged Streamlined that An Airframe Hull has Wings, Fins, and Landing Wheels included within the total hull tonnage. I suggest that the + sign be changed to an = sign
Page 40, Honors. In all previous versions of Traveller, to the best of my knowledge, Honors has granted a bonus Edu +1. Is this no longer the case?
Ackehece
SOC-13
Honors now grants another level to your major skill.
So for each degree you have honors in would get you major education skill +1 lvl. The biggest benefit of honors is if you want to continue education it is required to enter MANY advanced degrees.
It does not add edu directly but allows entry to advanced degrees... which do add edu.
Load as Passenger Space in VehicleMaker
here are now two rules handling this.
The old rule that 1ton of Load can carry 5 passengers now only applies to vehicles built on the Military table.
All other vehicles use; 1ton of Load can carry 4 passengers.
My objections:
1.) Two rules make for more complications.
2.) If I create a civilian vehicle add armour and a weapons mount and sell it to a military or mercenary force they can still only carry 4 passengers in the Load space. That's broken, you're designing a vehicle for a military/paramilitary purpose you're not going to allow less abilty to squeeze someone in just because its built on a civilian chassis.
3.) From an ergonomic/deckplan point of view I can make a Load area that is 3m wide, 3m long and 1.5m high. I can fit three "seats" along each wall that take up a space 1m wide each. While a little low on head room it seems quite reasonable to me.
Clever readers will spot that the above provides seating for six sophonts. That's Load=5 passengers and the rule that each ton of vehicle = 1 operator/passenger on standard and larger vehicles.
4). It was easy to port the Load=5 passengers over to ACS and assume that each ton of payload could be fitted with five seats when designing passenger seats (a three plus two style airline row with an aisle down the center), but now do spacecraft abide by the civilian rule of four or the military rule of five? does it depend on mission?
I'd advocate going for the simpler and more useful rule: "One ton of Load may be fitted out for the temporary or basic transport of five passengers".
here are now two rules handling this.
The old rule that 1ton of Load can carry 5 passengers now only applies to vehicles built on the Military table.
All other vehicles use; 1ton of Load can carry 4 passengers.
My objections:
1.) Two rules make for more complications.
2.) If I create a civilian vehicle add armour and a weapons mount and sell it to a military or mercenary force they can still only carry 4 passengers in the Load space. That's broken, you're designing a vehicle for a military/paramilitary purpose you're not going to allow less abilty to squeeze someone in just because its built on a civilian chassis.
3.) From an ergonomic/deckplan point of view I can make a Load area that is 3m wide, 3m long and 1.5m high. I can fit three "seats" along each wall that take up a space 1m wide each. While a little low on head room it seems quite reasonable to me.
Clever readers will spot that the above provides seating for six sophonts. That's Load=5 passengers and the rule that each ton of vehicle = 1 operator/passenger on standard and larger vehicles.
4). It was easy to port the Load=5 passengers over to ACS and assume that each ton of payload could be fitted with five seats when designing passenger seats (a three plus two style airline row with an aisle down the center), but now do spacecraft abide by the civilian rule of four or the military rule of five? does it depend on mission?
I'd advocate going for the simpler and more useful rule: "One ton of Load may be fitted out for the temporary or basic transport of five passengers".
Reserves in Character Creation
Okay this version of the rules is clearer on the matter of Reserves than the last with one major exception.
When a character leaves a military career he is in the Reserves.
What is not explicitly stated anywhere that I can see is that the character remains with the reserves until Life Stage 9 (inferred from the table on p.48) when they retire from the reserves and start receiving a Reserve Pension.
It's important to understand that a character remains in the Reserves for this period because at anytime "characters in the Reserves (from participation in OTC/NOTC, or Service Academy) who roll an unmodified 2 exactly do not continue in the current career, but return to their military career for the next term, at their previous rank."
Somewhere in the text it should say "a character who leaves a military career is automatically in the reserves until retirement at Life Stage 9 when he/she receives a Reserve Pension".
Which brings up another question. Can you resign from (or be cashiered from) the Reserves?
If so this would explain how "Cashing out" on p.51 applies to a Reserve pension. It would also avoid the possibility of being reactivated in a military career if they player wants to avoid that possibility.
(Probably a lot of the above applies to other pensions and careers but I'm specifically interested in the Reserves).
Okay this version of the rules is clearer on the matter of Reserves than the last with one major exception.
When a character leaves a military career he is in the Reserves.
What is not explicitly stated anywhere that I can see is that the character remains with the reserves until Life Stage 9 (inferred from the table on p.48) when they retire from the reserves and start receiving a Reserve Pension.
It's important to understand that a character remains in the Reserves for this period because at anytime "characters in the Reserves (from participation in OTC/NOTC, or Service Academy) who roll an unmodified 2 exactly do not continue in the current career, but return to their military career for the next term, at their previous rank."
Somewhere in the text it should say "a character who leaves a military career is automatically in the reserves until retirement at Life Stage 9 when he/she receives a Reserve Pension".
Which brings up another question. Can you resign from (or be cashiered from) the Reserves?
If so this would explain how "Cashing out" on p.51 applies to a Reserve pension. It would also avoid the possibility of being reactivated in a military career if they player wants to avoid that possibility.
(Probably a lot of the above applies to other pensions and careers but I'm specifically interested in the Reserves).
Ackehece
SOC-13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reban
p.255 FLYER RANGE BAND MOVEMENT
This is I think meant to represent stalling speed for an aircraft, but Speed 6 is 100kph and it is possible to design winged flyers with speeds less than Speed 6.
These designs may be nonviable but they might just have a lower stalling speed.
Originally Posted by Reban
p.255 FLYER RANGE BAND MOVEMENT
This is I think meant to represent stalling speed for an aircraft, but Speed 6 is 100kph and it is possible to design winged flyers with speeds less than Speed 6.
These designs may be nonviable but they might just have a lower stalling speed.
Interestingly enough T5 (and all previous versions) also calculate the density of the atmosphere and the gravity of a planet. The vehicle builder does not take this into account for powered flyers. Both of these factors would heavily influence the design of a winged aircraft. I think the abstraction at this level is fine
Agreed. I think Flappers are limited to Dense atmospheres but Winged can be used in VThin to Dense Atmospheres as per p.251 Flyers Terrain Table.
Speed 6 seems about right for standard atmosphere, I know a Cessna single engine plane will stall around the 70mph mark.
The question really is, if you build a very big (read large wingspan) aircraft that has a Speed of 5 or less, can it fly at all, or does it drop out of the sky at a slower speed?
The rule could be modified as if the Flyer drops below Speed -X it ceases to generate lift and falls.
Speed 6 seems about right for standard atmosphere, I know a Cessna single engine plane will stall around the 70mph mark.
The question really is, if you build a very big (read large wingspan) aircraft that has a Speed of 5 or less, can it fly at all, or does it drop out of the sky at a slower speed?
The rule could be modified as if the Flyer drops below Speed -X it ceases to generate lift and falls.
Ackehece
SOC-13
Suggestion
I have a suggestion to all: When you create a post in the errata thread, start the title with the page number and a colon. That way, the rest of us can see with only a cursory review of the posts whether it's already been reported.
For example, my first one over there will have the subject
45: period vs. semi-colon
I have a suggestion to all: When you create a post in the errata thread, start the title with the page number and a colon. That way, the rest of us can see with only a cursory review of the posts whether it's already been reported.
For example, my first one over there will have the subject
45: period vs. semi-colon
47: Land grant vs. world terminology
On page 47, right side, under the Land Grants subsection, the last sentence says "A world with no TC ...". However, it's the land grant that generates the income, not the world.
Probably should read something like "A land grant on a world with no TCs ..."
Note also that TC should be pluralized TCs.
On page 47, right side, under the Land Grants subsection, the last sentence says "A world with no TC ...". However, it's the land grant that generates the income, not the world.
Probably should read something like "A land grant on a world with no TCs ..."
Note also that TC should be pluralized TCs.
48-49: TAS life vs. fellow
This post can be ignored. I was corrected later in the thread.
On page 48 on the whole page, there is no entry for a TAS fellowship. The only entry is a life membership under the automatics section. However, in the table on page 49, only TAS fellow memberships are in the table.
This could be by design, but it's also possibly a typo, so I wanted to mention it. If by design, then this post can be ignored.
This post can be ignored. I was corrected later in the thread.
On page 48 on the whole page, there is no entry for a TAS fellowship. The only entry is a life membership under the automatics section. However, in the table on page 49, only TAS fellow memberships are in the table.
This could be by design, but it's also possibly a typo, so I wanted to mention it. If by design, then this post can be ignored.
Last edited:
Tim Soholt
SOC-8
Two Questions I've Had Since 5.0
1)p. 46, Continue: Does someone who is Changing Careers need to roll in case they get a 2? It should be clearly stated one way or the other.
2)p. 50, Benefits (header on p. 47): Can the DM for terms be partially applied, and can other DMs be foregone? I rolled up an agent yesterday who, if forgoing the DM only applies to terms, had the choices of money or knighthood for each of his 23 mustering out benefits.
1)p. 46, Continue: Does someone who is Changing Careers need to roll in case they get a 2? It should be clearly stated one way or the other.
2)p. 50, Benefits (header on p. 47): Can the DM for terms be partially applied, and can other DMs be foregone? I rolled up an agent yesterday who, if forgoing the DM only applies to terms, had the choices of money or knighthood for each of his 23 mustering out benefits.
Tim Soholt
SOC-8
TAS Fellowship is third from the bottom under Benefits->Non-Financial on p. 48.
