Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[Zane]

Weapons Table again...

Rifle, Bolt-Action

SIZ/Enc 2.0

If I understand how this works, that makes it 2 foot long. That is a tad short, even for a 22. It probably should be 3.0, same as "Rifle, Sporting", or slightly longer.

[Jason D]

Weapons Table again...

Rifle, Bolt-Action

SIZ/Enc 2.0

If I understand how this works, that makes it 2 foot long. That is a tad short, even for a 22. It probably should be 3.0, same as "Rifle, Sporting", or slightly longer.

SIZ doesn't equate to a 1 SIZ = 1 foot ratio. It's more a measure of bulk and is admittedly vaguely defined.

However, it should likely be 3.0, like the sporting rifle, a change I'll note.

[The Venomous Pao]

No acrobatics skill?

Juggle is listed twice as a specialty under Perform. And that's on top of it being used as the "acting w/o skill" example. Which one of you really likes to juggle?

[Jason D]

No acrobatics skill?

That was one of those that we went back and forth on, but eventually decided to just fold under an Agility roll's functionality. It's easy enough to create a new skill in BRP, though.

Juggle is listed twice as a specialty under Perform. And that's on top of it being used as the "acting w/o skill" example. Which one of you really likes to juggle?

I've got the double-listing, and addressed it being used in the caption.

And anyone who's played Stormbringer 1st edition will know why Juggling is the skill to have.

[Atgxtg]

Jason,

Not to nitpick, but the book refers to a battleship as a modern battleship. Technically there is no such thing. Battleships have been obsolete for over 60 years and the last ones were made during WWII.

The "problem" is see is that if a Battleship is considered "modern" then someone mind think that is is concurrent with "modern" tanks. Unless you intended for a modern tank to be a WWII era tank.

Maybe late model or post-Dreadnought Battleship or just plain Battleship would be better?

[The Venomous Pao]

That was one of those that we went back and forth on, but eventually decided to just fold under an Agility roll's functionality. It's easy enough to create a new skill in BRP, though.

Aha. Got it. Makes perfect sense and I figured one could be created if needed. Thanks.

And anyone who's played Stormbringer 1st edition will know why Juggling is the skill to have.

I haven't. But I've certainly had more than my fair share of characters who juggled. I especially like the rules systems where juggling buys you a chance to catch thrown knives and throw them back at your attacker

[Jason D]

Not to nitpick, but the book refers to a battleship as a modern battleship. Technically there is no such thing. Battleships have been obsolete for over 60 years and the last ones were made during WWII.

The "problem" is see is that if a Battleship is considered "modern" then someone mind think that is is concurrent with "modern" tanks. Unless you intended for a modern tank to be a WWII era tank.

Maybe late model or post-Dreadnought Battleship or just plain Battleship would be better?

The phrase "modern" as applying to a battleship was just to differentiate it from those made in the Age of Sail, just like the "modern" designator applies to a wide range of weapons and armors which originated anywhere in the last hundred or so years.

[Jason D]

I haven't. But I've certainly had more than my fair share of characters who juggled. I especially like the rules systems where juggling buys you a chance to catch thrown knives and throw them back at your attacker

I can't remember if it did that, but in SB1, you could add half your Juggle skill to any thrown weapon skill.

[Atgxtg]

The phrase "modern" as applying to a battleship was just to differentiate it from those made in the Age of Sail, just like the "modern" designator applies to a wide range of weapons and armors which originated anywhere in the last hundred or so years.

Cool. Thanks.

[Lord Twig]

Hi Jason,

On page 174, 2nd column, under Special Success, it says to round fractions down, but there are a couple errors in the example.

First, it says 65/5=13.6, but I believe you mean 68/5=13.6.

Second it then says to round up to 14.

To add to the confusion the table on page 173, Skill Results Table lists the chances for Critical, Special, and Fumble, but it rounds Criticals and Specials up.

Under Fumble on page 174 it does not say to round up or down, but it does round up in the example.

Personally I was fine with the old method of using standard rounding for everything. Which is to say .5 or higher rounds up and anything lower rounds down. But I understand the change. Math is hard after all.

[Lord Twig]

Quick one.

I could not find a "dagger" in the weapons list. I found knife and sai, but not dagger.

[Atgxtg]

Quick one.

I could not find a "dagger" in the weapons list. I found knife and sai, but not dagger.

Well, that just ruined MacBeth?

"Is this a dag- Hey where'd the dagger go?!"

Is there a bladed weapon that does 1D6 or 1D4+2 like a bokdin or a dirk?

[Jason D]

Quick one.

I could not find a "dagger" in the weapons list. I found knife and sai, but not dagger.

That one was an oversight - it originally was on the ancient list, then got moved to the historic and somehow got cut between.

It's on my list of fixes.

[Lord Twig]

How about the skills? Are you supposed to round up or down for Specials and Criticals?

[Atgxtg]

How about the skills? Are you supposed to round up or down for Specials and Criticals?

The old rule was round to the nearest. Is there a crit & special table in the new book?

[Sutekh]

I noticed that there was a description for the plasma pistol but there are not stats for it.

[Jason D]

I noticed that there was a description for the plasma pistol but there are not stats for it.

Another of those weird dropped weapons.

I know I statted out out... I'll make sure it gets back into the manuscript.

[Jason D]

Under the Skill Improvement section, it doesn't provide an optional rule that utilizes the optional characteristic category modifiers rule. I think that this was probably just a mistake in not including this extension of the category modifier optional rule.

...

Was this omitted for space reasons, or simply overlooked in compiling the book?

The second. I'll see that a section addressing it gets into the revision.

[Jason D]

Still, pg. 294 and 323, the pictures have the same caption. Something about players foiling the GM.

I suspect this is placeholder text, at least I hope so, as I swear half the pictures in the book have the exact same caption.

I do agree though, flipping through it seemed like there were a few duplicated captions.

Yeah, Charlie was duplicating captions throughout the book as placeholders. I'll make sure that they're replaced with proper captions.

[Jason D]

Jason... Am I correct in assuming that for vehicles and other objects that SIZ=mass? (I don't have 0 yet, so don't have access to your charts).

Generally, yes. But remember that SIZ is also not a cut-and-dried measure, any more than the other characteristics are. For example, a SIZ 0 item could be the size of a pin, or a ballpoint pen, where one is an order of magnitude greater than the other but they're still functionally SIZ 0.

[Jason D]

Also, regarding sorcery. You can have a number of spells equal to your Int, but on P128 under levels it says: "If the number is a range, the spell's level is variable, and the players can choose how many level of the spell their characters have in memory and are able to cast."

What does that mean exactly? It doesn't matter what the level of the spell is to store it in your Int, each spell only takes 1 Int, correct? Is there any reason you wouldn't always just have the maximum in mind? If you did have, say, Sorcerer's Strength 3 in mind, could you cast it at just level one instead? Or would you always have to use level 3?

Each spell level fills one point of free INT.

For example, Cloak of Night can be cast at levels 1-4. Your character can memorize Cloak of Night (1), costing 1 point of free INT, or (assuming it's known), he can memorize Cloak of Night (4), filling up 4 points of free INT. He can choose to cast it at a lower level, but can only cast what he's got in memory. So your character must choose tactically - have a few spells at full levels, or many at 1 level.

The third paragraph of the "Sorcery Spell Limitations" section explains it with the bookshelf metaphor.

[Jason D]

Step Six (which I adore) is listed in the numbered walkthrough (obviously) but is omitted from the more detailed look at each part of character creation. It seemed like they might be worthy of at least a passing mention there as well. Then again, I can understand not "wasting" the space on repeat info. So this is just a thought.

Hmmm... could you check again?

It's right there in my copy. I've got with me a slightly earlier version than the Edition Zero version, but I'd be surprised if it got taken out.

[Jason D]

Another spot that seems confusing/contradictory- Starting Super Powers: Power Budget (p.141)

This section states that the POW characteristic becomes the power budget and may be modified through power modifiers. Then it says that the GM can further modify the budget based on campaign power level. Cool so far. But the examples of how the budget gets modified all reference "highest initial unmodified characteristic" instead of POW as the base value for the power budget.

That move away from POW continues in the rest of the section.

So... is it POW or is it whichever characteristic is highest? I have no problem with making a call on my own, of course. But I'm curious what the intent is. And I suppose it would be nice if that were clarified for others who might get hung up more than I'm willing to be

It is the highest initial unmodified characteristic that's correct.

The move away from POW as the power budget was specifically to reduce the "one stat to rule them all" syndrome.

[Jason D]

On page 174, 2nd column, under Special Success, it says to round fractions down, but there are a couple errors in the example.

First, it says 65/5=13.6, but I believe you mean 68/5=13.6.

Second it then says to round up to 14.

To add to the confusion the table on page 173, Skill Results Table lists the chances for Critical, Special, and Fumble, but it rounds Criticals and Specials up.

Under Fumble on page 174 it does not say to round up or down, but it does round up in the example.

Personally I was fine with the old method of using standard rounding for everything. Which is to say .5 or higher rounds up and anything lower rounds down. But I understand the change. Math is hard after all.

Excuse me for a moment while I go find Sam and kick him in hit location 9-11.

(He wrote the system section, and that part specifically.)

It's standard rounding. I'll include a note of it, and check the examples.

[The Venomous Pao]

Hmmm... could you check again?

It's right there in my copy. I've got with me a slightly earlier version than the Edition Zero version, but I'd be surprised if it got taken out.

Perhaps I should have clarified...

(a) The little chart for Step Six appears on the call-out character sheet thing. Excellent.

( There is text discussing Step Six on page 21 - very nice

© On page 31, though, there is no mention of Step Six at all. It seems like a paragraph here might help. Then again, I might be a moron

That's what I meant. Do with it as you will.