Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[The Venomous Pao]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

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.

Coolness. Y'all will just want to hit that first paragraph then.

Thanks for the responses, Jason.

[randallorndorff]

Originally I put this on rpg.net, but it was suggested I post this here for efficiency:

"Got the 0th edition rules, good stuff! Both of these questions are regarding the Point Based Character Creation option on page 19.

1) No "base" level is listed. I assume 10 + normal modifiers for age (and intangibles such as background)?

2) The option says that you can alter the EDU stat with points as desired, but it does not list a cost. I assume 3 points because skills are based on it and it is thus goes in the more expensive category of characteristics?

In all honesty though, errors/unclear sections normally stick out like a sore thumb to me, and I have found very few for a "0th edition proof" copy of the rules. Kudos to you and Chaosium!"

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by randallorndorff

1) No "base" level is listed. I assume 10 + normal modifiers for age (and intangibles such as background)?

The Education section says the GM should assign it based on age and background. The "base level" would be the GM's decision based on the setting and the campaign.

For example, if the GM is setting a game in a college, he may decide "Everyone begins with an EDU of 12, representing high school education - any additional points spent indicate your year of college or some additional external schooling".

Originally Posted by randallorndorff

2) The option says that you can alter the EDU stat with points as desired, but it does not list a cost. I assume 3 points because skills are based on it and it is thus goes in the more expensive category of characteristics?

Correct.

It should have been in there, but since it's one optional system referring to another optional system, it may have gotten accidentally overlooked. I'll see that it goes into the corrections for the final book.

Hope this helps.

[SDLeary]

Jason,

Powers: Super Powers Summary (p147)

Omits the Resistance Power from p160

SDLeary

[sdavies2720]

On p11 the definition of "Characteristic Check" says that it is your characteristic multiplied by a "multiple" and gives an example with a multiple of 3.

On p20, Step Four of character creation, it says to multiply each characteristic by 5 to get the "Characteristic Roll". If "Characteristic Roll" is not a "Characteristic Check", why did we define a "Characteristic Check". If Characteristic Roll == Characteristic Check, we either need to change the definition so it's only x5%, or add additional columns on the character sheet.

on p171 (nice index by the way), the description of Characteristic Rolls almost clears it up. (It would be nice to add a page number [p175] to that Action Difficulty section redirect. But this introduces the skill halving mechanic, rather than explaining different multipliers.

Unless there is another reference back to "Characteristic Check" (I admit that I'm working slowly through the document, and only reading ahead by index), you can probably just drop the Characteristic Check definition altogether.

Steve

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by sdavies2720

On p11 the definition of "Characteristic Check" says that it is your characteristic multiplied by a "multiple" and gives an example with a multiple of 3.

On p20, Step Four of character creation, it says to multiply each characteristic by 5 to get the "Characteristic Roll". If "Characteristic Roll" is not a "Characteristic Check", why did we define a "Characteristic Check". If Characteristic Roll == Characteristic Check, we either need to change the definition so it's only x5%, or add additional columns on the character sheet.

on p171 (nice index by the way), the description of Characteristic Rolls almost clears it up. (It would be nice to add a page number [p175] to that Action Difficulty section redirect. But this introduces the skill halving mechanic, rather than explaining different multipliers.

Unless there is another reference back to "Characteristic Check" (I admit that I'm working slowly through the document, and only reading ahead by index), you can probably just drop the Characteristic Check definition altogether.

Steve

I think thatis becuase the GM can and should vary the mutiple based on the diffiuclty of the task. That is the way it has always been done. The STATx5% roll is the most common, but STATx3% or STATx1% (or even x10%) can come up.

[randallorndorff]

I realize that you are very busy working on the final version, but will we get the missing weapons at some point (i.e. Plasma Pistol, Daggers)?

At least with regards to Daggers (as they are commonly used in many varieties of campaigns), are they statistically the same as the ones in Stormbringer 5th edition? It would seem so, but the damage for a thrown dagger in the combat example is different than that of the "throwing dagger" (although those could be different weapons). Thanks!

[randallorndorff]

I don't know if this has been noted yet or not:

The Skill Results Table (and at least one of the following examples) seems to assume that skills percentages are rounded up when calculating Criticals and Specials, while the rules as written say to round fractions down.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by randallorndorff

I don't know if this has been noted yet or not:

The Skill Results Table (and at least one of the following examples) seems to assume that skills percentages are rounded up when calculating Criticals and Specials, while the rules as written say to round fractions down.

It's been noted upthread.

[sdavies2720]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think thatis becuase the GM can and should vary the mutiple based on the diffiuclty of the task. That is the way it has always been done. The STATx5% roll is the most common, but STATx3% or STATx1% (or even x10%) can come up.

I understand, but the text should be consistent for clarity.

Steve