Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[Jason D]

I'm turning in my own final batch of changes to the manuscript, having red-inked a tape-bound copy of the manuscript until it's noticeably gained weight (I joke, but not by much).

Many of the edits are cosmetic and aren't to be worried about, but I'm calling upon the collected wisdom and kindness of those of who who've got copies to alert me to any items that would fall under the category of typos, errata, corrections, or clarification.

Note that I'm not really wanting to turn this thread into a debate about why a particular mechanic works a certain way, or what would be better (unless it's a minor fix), or arguing the philosophy of the rules.

However, if there's anything we can get in at the last minute, here's the place to do so.

For example, for some reason the Ammo column is blank on the Energy Weapons table. Not sure why, but it is a definite error. However, the discussion of whether the Energy Sword should do Impaling versus Bleeding specials... that's not really what I'm after here (even though I've made that change).

Thanks!

[drohem]

This got buried in another thread, but I wanted to bring to your attention. This is concerning catergory modifiers and skill improvement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Don't they still add to improvement rolls? That was probably their biggest impact .

Yes and no. This edition uses the Experience Bonus which is half the Intelligence characteristic. If you have earned an experience check, then you roll and add your Experience Bonus to the roll. If the roll exceeds your current skill level, then you increase the skill by 1d6 or 3 percentiles.

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.

Personally, I will be using the Skill Category Modifiers. Therefore, the skill category modifier for a particular skill will be added to an experience roll.

Jason-

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

[Zane]

Odd, I was just about to ask where to submit these.

From the weapons tables

Shotgun, Sawn-Off

Damage: 4D6/1D6/ (should read 4D6/1D6)

Range: 10/20/ (should read 10/20 or to match CoC it should really be 5/10)

Is the STR requirement for a Sniper Rifle really 5! That is lower than a sporting rifle. Additionally what round are you figuring will give it a 2D10+4, as that seems odd. It is to high for a 7.62mm (M21 or M24 at 2D6+4), and to low for a .50 caliber M82A1 at 2D10+1D8+6).

What caliber is the sporting rifle considered to be? I would have expected .30-06 which is 2D6+4 rather than 2D6.

I'm currently upgrading existing gun tables, starting with the CoC 5.6 book to include the material given in this book, so might have more errors. I also have a couple questions I'll put in a gun specific thread.

Zane

[Chaot]

Haven't had a chance to give the book a good reading yet. I keep repeating to myself that the weekend is coming!

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

There's also the typo in the Afterword and the MOV issue with Horses.

[Zane]

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.

[Chaot]

Hmm, I think what we're seeing is going to be what we get if there are no corrections. I do agree though, flipping through it seemed like there were a few duplicated captions. I just mentioned the ones I knew of for sure.

[Zane]

Is the STR requirement for a Sniper Rifle really 5! That is lower than a sporting rifle. Additionally what round are you figuring will give it a 2D10+4, as that seems odd. It is to high for a 7.62mm (M21 or M24 at 2D6+4), and to low for a .50 caliber M82A1 at 2D10+1D8+6).

What caliber is the sporting rifle considered to be? I would have expected .30-06 which is 2D6+4 rather than 2D6.

Atgxtg just pointed out in a PM that CoC 5.6 lists the M82 as 2D10+4, which is the same as "Rifle, Sniper" in the new book. My mistake, I forgot they had that listed under Assault Rifles in CoC (though the range has increased). The 2D10+1D8+6 number is from the original printing of Delta Green, which in turn lists the info as being from V1.4 of the "Weapons Compendium" which was published by Pagan Publishing in 1995 (I wish I had a copy of that book). I really like the info in Delta Green as they give the damage info for most types of ammo. I'm also more inclined to trust them as a source on this rather than Chaosium's existing books.

Additionally I asked one of the local gun nuts what caliber he would consider a "Sporting Rifle" to be and he said .30 caliber which is the 2D6 listed in the table.

So while I'm still wondering if the STR requirement is correct, it looks like the damage numbers are correct.

[frogspawner]

I trust you already got the one I mentioned a while ago (from the images) about Chapter Eleven being called "Creatures" on the contents page, but referred to as "Bestiary" on p16 & p19 (and maybe elsewhere)?

[Jason D]

Atgxtg just pointed out in a PM that CoC 5.6 lists the M82 as 2D10+4, which is the same as "Rifle, Sniper" in the new book. My mistake, I forgot they had that listed under Assault Rifles in CoC (though the range has increased). The 2D10+1D8+6 number is from the original printing of Delta Green, which in turn lists the info as being from V1.4 of the "Weapons Compendium" which was published by Pagan Publishing in 1995 (I wish I had a copy of that book). I really like the info in Delta Green as they give the damage info for most types of ammo. I'm also more inclined to trust them as a source on this rather than Chaosium's existing books.

Additionally I asked one of the local gun nuts what caliber he would consider a "Sporting Rifle" to be and he said .30 caliber which is the 2D6 listed in the table.

So while I'm still wondering if the STR requirement is correct, it looks like the damage numbers are correct.

Though I've got DG and the Weapons Compendium, I chose to refer to Chaosium manuscripts and existing values as the first source where possible.

The STR requirement for the sniper rifle assumes the use of either a tripod or a prone position. I suspect that the footnote disappeared when Charlie integrated the tables into the layout.

[Atgxtg]

Ah, so I take it that the "official" BRP rating for the M82 Barrett .50 cal is still 2D10+4?

Phew. Now I can take 30 AP off the tanks. Look like the M1A2 won't be Hulk-proof after all.

[drohem]

I noticed on the vehicle table that for Air Vehicles that the vehicles Hit Point score is exactly the same as their SIZ score, whereas with all other vehicles on the list their HP score is different than their SIZ score.

Was this intentional for air vehicles?

[Jason D]

I noticed on the vehicle table that for Air Vehicles that the vehicles Hit Point score is exactly the same as their SIZ score, whereas with all other vehicles on the list their HP score is different than their SIZ score.

Was this intentional for air vehicles?

Yes. Generally, vehicles or objects larger than characters have HP = SIZ, sometimes adjusted upwards by quality of construction or other admittedly nebulous factors. HP are rarely modified downwards below SIZ.

It's a judgment call, but my rationale was that aircraft, unlike ground ships and battleships, are often as light as possible, and so their HP are equal to SIZ, while denser, heavier vehicles have higher HP due to structural reenforcement, especially thick hulls, etc.

[drohem]

Yes. Generally, vehicles or objects larger than characters have HP = SIZ, sometimes adjusted upwards by quality of construction or other admittedly nebulous factors. HP are rarely modified downwards below SIZ.

It's a judgment call, but my rationale was that aircraft, unlike ground ships and battleships, are often as light as possible, and so their HP are equal to SIZ, while denser, heavier vehicles have higher HP due to structural reenforcement, especially thick hulls, etc.

That's cool, and I had the same thought process about air vehicles as well. I kind of thought that was what was intended, but just wanted to make sure.

Thanks!

[Atgxtg]

Yes. Generally, vehicles or objects larger than characters have HP = SIZ, sometimes adjusted upwards by quality of construction or other admittedly nebulous factors. HP are rarely modified downwards below SIZ.

So I take then that dirigibles would be the exception with HP lower than SIZ?

It's a judgment call, but my rationale was that aircraft, unlike ground ships and battleships, are often as light as possible, and so their HP are equal to SIZ, while denser, heavier vehicles have higher HP due to structural reenforcement, especially thick hulls, etc.

Ah...by density. So tanks being half made of dense armor plating have more HP.

[drohem]

So I take then that dirigibles would be the exception with HP lower than SIZ?

Dirgible is listed with SIZ and HP as 100.

[Atgxtg]

Dirgible is listed with SIZ and HP as 100.

Big bag of hydrogen has more HP that a Jet fighter?:confused:

[Jason D]

Big bag of hydrogen has more HP that a Jet fighter?:confused:

It's more the gondola (passenger/cargo compartment) and engines that have more HP.

There are three different types of dirigible; the airbag blimp style; a semi-rigid one; and a fully rigid one.

The stats in BRP are a sort of median value representing all three types.

[Atgxtg]

It's more the gondola (passenger/cargo compartment) and engines that have more HP.

There are three different types of dirigible; the airbag blimp style; a semi-rigid one; and a fully rigid one.

The stats in BRP are a sort of median value representing all three types.

I sort of figured that. But it is still a ballon. Poke some holes and it's going to get taken out fast. Especially when most are filled with hydrogen. Maybe something like lowering it's "major wound" score to 25 or so?

BTW, Tanks seem to be a bit vulnerable to small arms. I mentioned this elsewhere, but perhaps "impales" and critical against vehicles should only apply after armor? After all tanks aren't going to suffer from blunt trauma from a shotgun or elephant gun the way a person would.

That could be an "armored" special, meaning that it would only apply to vehicles that have been specifically armored, like Tanks, APCs, and Battleships, but not to vehicles that get their APs from bulk and engine like 18 Wheelers, Cruise ships, and Automobiles.

I can see a "sortscar" getting toasted with a "impale" or critical from a "submachinegun" , but it should only skuff of the paint on even a "vintage" tank.

[SDLeary]

I sort of figured that. But it is still a ballon. Poke some holes and it's going to get taken out fast. Especially when most are filled with hydrogen. Maybe something like lowering it's "major wound" score to 25 or so?

Um... Airships haven't been filled with Hydrogen in quite a long time. Helium is the preferred gas, and has been since a famous airship went down in Lakehurst, NJ. At least here in the US. In fact, it was preferred even before that incident, here in the US.

Now... poke them with holes and they will fall, yes. The hole(s) would have to be pretty large or numerous to cause this to be catastrophic. Rigid and semi-rigid airships also tend to have more than one gas bag, so you would need large or multiple hits in multiple areas, so I can see 100 hp because of their overall size(area not mass) and fragility.

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).

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Um... Airships haven't been filled with Hydrogen in quite a long time. Helium is the preferred gas, and has been since a famous airship went down in Lakehurst, NJ. At least here in the US. In fact, it was preferred even before that incident, here in the US.

Now... poke them with holes and they will fall, yes. The hole(s) would have to be pretty large or numerous to cause this to be catastrophic. Rigid and semi-rigid airships also tend to have more than one gas bag, so you would need large or multiple hits in multiple areas.

SDLeary

Modern airships don't have an internal structure. And while Helium is used in all modern airships, it was used almost exclusively in US airships until after WWII. The Hindenburg disaster didn't cause a change in the preferred gas. It was the preferred gas a lot earlier. At least by the time the of the Akron disaster. The US refused to sell Helium to the Germans, since at the time airships were still used by the military, and the US was not on good terms with Germany politically.

The Hindenburg was actually designed to be used with Helium.

[Lord Twig]

P123, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: "Once a spell is dismissed, it must be reacquired the sorcery from your character's grimoire."

Doesn't sound right.

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?

[Atgxtg]

P123, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: "Once a spell is dismissed, it must be reacquired the sorcery from your character's grimoire."

Doesn't sound right.

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?

Sounds like RQ2. In RQ2 you could "know" any number of spells, but only have your INT in spell points ready for use. So if you had an INT of 14 and knew Heal 6, Protection 6 and Bladesharp 4, you couldn't keep them all us at full value.

Maybe that is the intent?

[Lord Twig]

Sounds like RQ2. In RQ2 you could "know" any number of spells, but only have your INT in spell points ready for use. So if you had an INT of 14 and knew Heal 6, Protection 6 and Bladesharp 4, you couldn't keep them all us at full value.

Maybe that is the intent?

Possibly, but that is not what the rules say. I believe these were taken from Stormbringer 5. How do they work there?

[The Venomous Pao]

The Tribesman profession lists the Hide skill twice - once as a specifically defined skill and once in the "pick two" list.

The Melee Weapons skill lists "Club" as a specialization, explaining that maces are covered, but the Melee Weapons table lists maces with the "Mace" skill. It's decipherable, but slightly confusing.

Where appropriate on the weapons tables +db or +1/2db are listed. That's cool, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the tables that explains just what db is. I felt like an idiot when I figured it out, but I was annoyed when looking for it. It seemed to me that some sort of superscript (numbers, asterisks & daggers, whatever) that pointed to footnotes for the tables might provide the same info with slightly less "chart junk." In a perfect world, the thing to do would be only to mark weapons that don't add the db (on the melee table, anyway) since those are the exception rather than the rule.

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.

On the ordered character sheet walkthrough, Step Five (Derived Characteristics) - the second item gives a formula but doesn't tell you what Derived Characteristic the formula is for. It's HP, but that took a little work to figure out. Oh, and man did I love this thing, with its call-outs from the character sheet. Best thing I've seen for character creation in a long, long time.

That's all I've got just yet. On the whole the book is excellent. Cheers to all involved.

[The Venomous Pao]

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