Errata for "Fiery Trial"

[Catlion]

Hello everyone!

I know the book has been out for a while now, but I'm just coming round to start DMing it and after preparing module one I noticed a lot of errors or at least weird things. I know that some of them have been discussed in other threads, but I'd like to summarize what I found and ask you how you handled these issues.

1. The Universe Today dates and the episode dates don't match.

2. The travel time to Levana IV Beta is mentioned as 3 days at one point and eight days at another. The trip to T'lad'tha takes only one day whereas the shorter rest of the trip takes 7 (or 2?) days.

3. Allison is reported to have been on the station for 2 years, although the station went online about a year ago.

4. The map and the stats of the "Liberty's Fortune" don't match. It seems much too large on the map. The cargo capacity of 3000lbs seems much too low, especially if it is supposed to carry back a whole team of scientists and their equipment.

5. There are a lot of mistakes in the stat blocks of characters and creatures.

And that's what I found in module one only.
Considering that there are so many mistakes an official errata would be appropriate, IMHO, especially in the spirit of good customer support.
What do the others think?

 

[Kizarvexis]

I've always thought that the cargo capacities in the RPG should have been stated in tons instead of pounds and divided by 10. So the 'Liberty's Fortune' would have a 300 ton cargo capacity instead of 3,000 lbs (a ton and a half).

Kizarvexis

 

[lastbesthope]

I'd like to see an errata

LBH

 

[omegar]

as would I.

I am planning to use the fiery trail as the backbone for an upcoming campaign....

it has being a long time since i GM'd so i went with the cheat sheet to get back into the swing of it.

 

[scottmage]

As would I.

Errata seems to be in short supply for all of the products. I know some have been answered in the Forums, however a link to the forum for the product would be nice as the search engine is selective on what it returns.

 

[omegar]

To be honest, my biggest annoyance with Mongoose is the seeming lack of spellchecking and other such quality controls. Now the fact that it annoys me is a sign of how bad it is, as i am a terrible speller.

I know there was talk of hiring someone whose job that would be, and i look forward to seeing what effect that will have.

 

[Larac]

To be honest, my biggest annoyance with Mongoose is the seeming lack of spellchecking and other such quality controls. Now the fact that it annoys me is a sign of how bad it is, as i am a terrible speller.

I know there was talk of hiring someone whose job that would be, and i look forward to seeing what effect that will have.

Caught in the new D&D book a caption where get was spelled gth so I Know it happens to every one, but Mongoose seems to have more trouble than most, I would suggest an English Major still in school for the position, and one who does not game. Only show the last copy to her and then do all the corrections that are needed.

Alos newbies should be used to check over rule in many games, so that those who know what you mean are not the only ones who see it before print, as it may be clear to those who play hard core, but to the beginer make no sense.

Lee

 

[Ben W Bell]

The second module in the book suffers from a distinct lack of knowledge on the behalf of the writer. The entire section set on the Hermes class ship has descriptions of players running down corridors, running all over the place and reacting as in a standard sci-fi vessel. But of course human vessels in B5 don't have artificial gravity (unless they are Explorer or Omega class and even then it's only in the rotating sections). A Hermes class has no rotating section and hence no internal gravity. I feel this is a very fundamental mistake on the writers part, one that should never have happened and should never have slipped through the net.

Unfortunately this isn't the only place in the B5 line where this mistake has been made. I can't remember where else I've seen it, but I do recall coming across it somewhere else.

 

[Greg Smith]

Unfortunately this isn't the only place in the B5 line where this mistake has been made. I can't remember where else I've seen it, but I do recall coming across it somewhere else.

In the TV series, maybe? :?

 

[Ben W Bell]

Unfortunately this isn't the only place in the B5 line where this mistake has been made. I can't remember where else I've seen it, but I do recall coming across it somewhere else.

In the TV series, maybe? :?

Dunno. Don't recall the series being inconsistent on that particular point. I honestly can't remember where and I could be remembering wrong (it happens).

 

[Greg Smith]

I'm thinking of "In the Beginning", when the captain of Sheridan's ship is killed by debris that falls down.

It can be tough to remeber that the whole thing is zero-g. But I am as guilty of this as anyone. I had a couple of characters sparring aboard a ship and after a couple of rounds one of the players said, 'Isn't this zero-g?"

 

[Ben W Bell]

I'm thinking of "In the Beginning", when the captain of Sheridan's ship is killed by debris that falls down.

Oh come on, In The Beginning is so inconsistent with the rest of the series it's unbelievable. About the only consistant thing is there is a war between the humans and Minbari. I can't believe how inconsistent JMS made that.

As for the debris falling down though, I go more for the theory of pushed inwards rather than falling. Well it helps me sleep at night

 

[frobisher]

Oh come on, In The Beginning is so inconsistent with the rest of the series it's unbelievable. About the only consistant thing is there is a war between the humans and Minbari. I can't believe how inconsistent JMS made that.

Erm, is there some version you've seen that the rest of us haven't?

The events are entirely consistent with the rest of the series. Some events are omitted (notably the Soul Hunters) but that's about it.

 

[Eryx]

Oh come on, In The Beginning is so inconsistent with the rest of the series it's unbelievable. About the only consistant thing is there is a war between the humans and Minbari. I can't believe how inconsistent JMS made that.

Erm, is there some version you've seen that the rest of us haven't?

The events are entirely consistent with the rest of the series. Some events are omitted (notably the Soul Hunters) but that's about it.

There is the issue that in the series Sheridan mined the asteroid field in the Sol system with warheads and destroyed the Black Star and yet in ITB it seems like its not in the Sol system.

Thats not a big issue, and about the only one that I can think of.

 

[Renny]

it has being a long time since i GM'd so i went with the cheat sheet to get back into the swing of it.

A cheat sheet would be of interest to me. Is this one of your own devising or from some other source?

Thanks

Renny

 

[Catlion]

Today I tried to adapt "Fiery Trial" to the official timeline and I found out that you can't play the G'Kar's assassin side quest because it occurs during the religious festival week. In the Universe Today article for module 2 it says, that it would be next week, but if you do the main quest the characters would be off-station for that time. There is a similar problem with the last Universe Today dated for Dez 29. However, the attack on Quadrant 37 officially happens on the 31st.
Of course that only is an issue if you play with the official timeline, but IMHO an official campaign module like "Fiery Trial" should be consistant with the official timeline.

 

[omegar]

it has being a long time since i GM'd so i went with the cheat sheet to get back into the swing of it.

A cheat sheet would be of interest to me. Is this one of your own devising or from some other source?

I consider a module as a cheat sheet

Basically this is the first time i have planned to use a module as a major part of my campaign, but well considering some of my previous Campaigns it is needed.