Traveller errata

[donm61873]

Matthew and I had a discussion today on how to handle errata moving forward... this is the start of that effort. I'm going to start with the already compiled errata for the Core Rulebook, and request that corrections or other errata for ONLY the Core Rulebook be posted in this thread. You may also contact me at travellererrata@gmail.com. This will become part of a larger errata document for the entire Mongoose Traveller line (like the other Traveller legacy errata documents), but we're starting small.

The new errata document can be found at http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/pdfs/ConsolidatedTravellerErrata.pdf.

 

[sideranautae]

Page 55. Flyer skill includes Grav, Rotor & Wing. Grav needs to be moved to the Pilot skill set. The skill set needed for craft that use lifting surfaces is in no way related to Grav propulsion like that listed for Grav vehicles, small craft and space ships.

 

[sideranautae]

Page 106: Configuration section.

This section states that spacecraft that are spheres, cylinders (non lifting bodies) glide in atmosphere. That isn't possible.

This section needs to be rewritten to make sense of the different Configurations and how they perform.

 

[Infojunky]

Page 108, PERFORMANCE BY HULL VOLUME table, doesn't match other edition of traveller using the same specs.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Such eye-sores these erratas. Nit-picking every little thing. Who here pours through them anyway? What prolonged game issues were resolved for players by such lists?

 

[GypsyComet]

Page 106: Configuration section.

This section states that spacecraft that are spheres, cylinders (non lifting bodies) glide in atmosphere. That isn't possible.

Wings are not normally counted as part of the configuration. Spheres are a bit of a stretch, though.

 

[sideranautae]

Page 106: Configuration section.

This section states that spacecraft that are spheres, cylinders (non lifting bodies) glide in atmosphere. That isn't possible.

Wings are not normally counted as part of the configuration. Spheres are a bit of a stretch, though.

Wings are counted per the CRB. They are ONLY on ships with Streamlined hulls. See the page listed for more data.

 

[donm61873]

Page 108, PERFORMANCE BY HULL VOLUME table, doesn't match other edition of traveller using the same specs.

Failing to match other editions of Traveller isn't specifically an errata, unless that failure causes other problems...

 

[donm61873]

Folks, what Matthew and I are looking for are:

a) typos to fix for reprints
b) fixes to actual problems in use

Now, I'm told by people that there are a number of common house rules in use, so if that's true, let's see them.

I will be changing the pasted data above to a link to a document to preserve formatting, shortly.

 

[sideranautae]

double post

 

[sideranautae]

Folks, what Matthew and I are looking for are:

a) typos to fix for reprints
b) fixes to actual problems in use

So you want potentially dozens of ways different GM's handle various problems in the rules?

If that is the case, this forum is littered with years worth of that from GM's already... Just gather it up.

{edit} here is a search that'll gather it together quickly. http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com...=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

 

[donm61873]

Folks, what Matthew and I are looking for are:

a) typos to fix for reprints
b) fixes to actual problems in use

So you want potentially dozens of ways different GM's handle various problems in the rules?

If that is the case, this forum is littered with years worth of that from GM's already... Just gather it up.

And much of that litter is... litter. Or house rules just for house rules sake. Or inserting rules from previous editions... because. We're not looking for that.

So your take on gathering errata is either a) not needed, or b) just search the forums. Ok, thanks for your assistance.

 

[sideranautae]

So your take on gathering errata is either a) not needed, or b) just search the forums. Ok, thanks for your assistance.

Well, based on the almost total lack of response so far I thought it would be better than almost nothing... If you noticed I'm one of ONLY two who jumped in with ANY errata to help out with the request.

You didn't answer the 1st and most pertinent question. "So you want potentially dozens of ways different GM's handle various problems in the rules?"

I'll leave the other errata I've gathered in my Trav folder on my computer.

ciao

 

[pasuuli]

I think he wants "just" errata. Where the use-problem ("this doesn't work as intended in the rules") and the solution ("but it obviously meshes quite nicely with the rules/intent when used like XYZ") are both commonly understood. (Is that a close enough approximation?)

House rules on things that people don't like don't fall into that category. For example, my preference on drive volume percentages clearly don't qualify as "errata", since their drive potential table works fine as-is.

 

[Sigtrygg]

My understanding is that errata has to be of one of three types:

typo fixing - something is mistyped in the CRB

rules correction - a problem has come to light with a particular rule, here is an official correction

rules update - usually found in supplements and adventures that overwrite CRB rules

Errata is not:

hey I think this rule sucks, mine is better

hey this rule breaks the laws of physics as discovered by CERN last tuesday, mine is more up to date and much better

hey I don;t think it should work like that, here is how it works in my home-brew houserules which are much better

 

[AndrewW]

Well, based on the almost total lack of response so far I thought it would be better than almost nothing... If you noticed I'm one of ONLY two who jumped in with ANY errata to help out with the request.

Not entirely true. This has been gathered over time through the email address. People contributing may not do it through the forum.

 

[donm61873]

Well, based on the almost total lack of response so far I thought it would be better than almost nothing... If you noticed I'm one of ONLY two who jumped in with ANY errata to help out with the request.

Not entirely true. This has been gathered over time through the email address. People contributing may not do it through the forum.

Actually, this is very true. The presented errata for the Core book (we'll start adding other books shortly to the list, which will probably mean changing to a link, so we can use a document) comes from material I presented to Matthew after the original errata effort.

 

[donm61873]

In the process of compiling the current High Guard errata to add to this. At that point, I'll provide a link to the combined document, as the forum cannot handle the formatting.

And thanks to the several e-mails that have responded.

 

[GypsyComet]

Page 106: Configuration section.

This section states that spacecraft that are spheres, cylinders (non lifting bodies) glide in atmosphere. That isn't possible.

Wings are not normally counted as part of the configuration. Spheres are a bit of a stretch, though.

Wings are counted per the CRB. They are ONLY on ships with Streamlined hulls. See the page listed for more data.

Ah, right, THAT section. Easiest errata is to remove the reference to specific shapes under "Standard". More involved correction is possible, as long as the fundamental simplicity of the Core book is maintained.

 

[Dracous]

Page 150, Space Combat, Damage (clarification): Personal damage and vehicle damage both add effect to damage rolls, but starship damage does not.

I have been applying effect to the damage. Keeps it consistent personal and vehicle combat, and also with the Barrage rules in High Guard.