Errata & FAQ Updates

[WillyPete]

GGtG:

Page 23 lists a pistol as Diminutive or Tiny, but page 24 lists it as Medium.

The former is the actual size of the device, the latter appears to refer to the size of the weilder it was designed for.

I believe, arcady, that Dr. Nuncheon is quite correct, and that neither statement is in error!
The wording is imprecise, to be sure (Hey, it's based off a D20 product, what do you want?), but for Usage purposes, a Pistol is a Medium weapon, that a Medium character can use one-handed...
For storage purposes (including the Utility belt rule, I suspect), it is either Tiny, or Diminuitive, based on the size of the weapon...
{I would think only very small Derringers would constitute Diminuitive, though!}
The statements really don't conflict, as you seem to think they do...
rather they are discussing different aspects of the same object!
{Kind of like those Blind fellows discussing the nature of an Elephant... Are you holding on to the trunk, or the tail, or the foot?}

[arcady]

I think you're putting words into the text that are not there. If you want them to be there that is fine, but then that is what this thread is about - errata. But the text says explicitly something else. It explicitly defines the size of a pistol in two different categories.

In one place it says explicitly that the object is Medium. In another it says explicitly that it is Diminutive or Tiny. It -NEVER- says one of these is usage and the other actual size nor which applies to the Utility Belt extra.

Errata is needed to correct whichever wording is in error, because a logical conclusion can go either way. I have direct and exact wording to let me rule a utility belt holds Medium items, and I have direct and exact wording that says a utility belt hold diminutive or smaller. But those two wordings are incompatible. If I rule one way, I have wording that proves me wrong and for the other, and vice versa.

What I want is immaterial. What I prefer is not relevant. What it says is what is at question because this is an errata thread. What is relevant for that is what Mike Mearls and the editor wanted and prefered it to mean.

After that is cleared up, what -I- want or prefer is a matter of following the rule or making a house rule. But I can't do either now because there are two contradictory and yet clearly stated rules here.

[WillyPete]

{Le Sigh!}
As I said, the wording is unclear and imprecise...
but this is an OGL product, and not anything conforming to the (dear, departed) SPI "Case System" format!

You have made your point, and I agree with you that it should be cleared up... but my experience with reading the rules, and mentioning such problems to Mr. Kenson, is that such 'minor' issues will be addressed around about the time of the Heat Death of the Universe...

For people who prefer their rules 'fast and loose', my explanation works quite well...
People who want that 'absolute, Ironclad' set of rules had best look elsewhere, as 'Mutants and Masterminds' is never even going to attempt to be that kind of rules set!
Mr. Kenson's usual Rallying Cry on such issues is that "The Right Ruling is the one that's the Most Fun!", and that is the spirit in which the rules are written...
If you aren't satisfied with that situation, you can always turn back to 'Champions', and worship at the Altar of Steve Long's Ego...

[arcady]

You're talking about a difference of requiring all gadgets used through a utility belt to need 1 extras or 0 - a doubling of their effective cost for basic devices like a weapon, force field head band, portable computer, flight gloves, invisibility mask, and so on. As per table 2-5, the size category of a device counts as extras or flaws.

That's not actually a minor thing at all. Rulings one way or the other will result in vastly different costs on powers.

And, both rulings are completely logical and completely backed by the rules. If anything, I think this is the most important of the errata's I've found so far.

If you think this game has no place for fixing rules errors, you're in the wrong thread. This thread was started, by Steve, to find errata and get it fixed:

Okay, folks. This thread is the place to post questions or updates for the errata
...
So if you've noticed a mistake not in the present errata or there's a frequenly asked question not in the FAQ, post it here and let us know!

If you think it is wrong to fix typos and errors, go sit in another thread. If you want a game that is so fast and loose with the rules that anything and everything flies with how you interpret them, go play Silver Age Sentinels. As long as we're going to be snobby and say things like 'this isn't the game for you', that's the one I'll recomment for people who feel this entire thread started by Steve has no place or right to exist...

[WillyPete]

First, I have said nothing of the sort, and have explained why this is not a typo, at all... and you have utterly ignored my explanation, because you have become fixated on the notion that the rules mean what YOU think they do...
BOTH statements are true, AND there is NO contradiction!

Yes, it would be more proper to word the statements differently.
No, I am not a fan of SAS, and I wish the language in M&M were a bit more precise.
Essentially, I am in complete agreement with you, but since I am responding to you, you seem to be trying to take what I say, not only as a refutation of your comments (which it is not), but also as a Personal Attack!

Please calm down, and pay attention!

Yes, a Pistol is a Medium-size weapon, for ONE purpose (determining what size 'creature' can use it one-handed... this is a hold-over from AD&D!)...
AND it is a Tiny-sized weapon, for the OTHER purpose (determining what size object you can carry on your Utility Belt)...
at the same time, and with no change in cost!

I mention Mr. Kenson's 'fast and loose' approach to the rules, not in reverential awe (as you seem to assume), but as a means of explainaing how this 'terrible' error came to be...
and by way of explaining that it is NOT as 'terrible' as you seem to think it is!
For the most part, most people don't have as much trouble 'filling in' these kind of 'holes' that you seem to, and the style of rules writing that does take the kind of approach you want (and that I do miss, after a fashion) is considered hopelessly antiquated...
Even I will admit that Mr. Kenson's work (while full of 'holes' of this sort, some of which are far more frustrating than this one) is a LOT easier to read than the sort of 'legalese' that avoids such problems!

You've made your point, and I agree, a small refinement to the wording would help, dramatically...
I'm merely trying to point out that your interpretation of what the error means is incorrect!
By all means, please do point out any more errors that you find, and feel free to ask questions, if the rules seem unclear....
Just, PLEASE, do not assume that anyone trying to help you is, instead, impugning your honor, besmirching your reputation, soiling your carpet, and telling you that your dear old Grandmother wears Army Boots!

[The Fifth Wanderer]

Two requests with regards to the errata:

First, can we get seperate errata lists for the first and second printings? I've still got my copy of the first printing, and some things I know were corrected in the second printing are not in the list on the website. Or maybe they are? Did the 'free extra' on force field disappear?

Second, can we get the errata in a downloadable format?

[chatty]

You're talking about a difference of requiring all gadgets used through a utility belt to need 1 extras or 0 - a doubling of their effective cost for basic devices like a weapon, force field head band, portable computer, flight gloves, invisibility mask, and so on. As per table 2-5, the size category of a device counts as extras or flaws.

That's not actually a minor thing at all. Rulings one way or the other will result in vastly different costs on powers.

And, both rulings are completely logical and completely backed by the rules. If anything, I think this is the most important of the errata's I've found so far.

Having ruminated on this issue for the past month, I've kind of decided the official rules don't matter because the in-game benefits derived from device size are not commensurate with the cost of them as an Extra. The benefit derived from making a device smaller than Medium is more aligned with the cost of a Power Stunt or Feat (Thanks, Paragon, for the idea).

That said, even if I DID think the size cost was fair (and, by extension, that the notion of doubling the cost of a Force Field device so it can be a belt instead of a pair of hip-high boots was a good notion), the rules regarding object size do, indeed, need to be clarified. This is because they impact more than just the cost of a gadget

In the M&M core rulebook, there are rules for attacking items. The rules are accompanied by a table that indicates what size category a given item or character belongs to, based upon size and weight, along with the corresponding attack bonus or penalty. Please pardon my crummy syntax. I hope my point is clear. Anyway, this chart is consistent with the chart used with the Shrinking power. If a "pistol sized" object, which is Tiny on the Shrinking and Object Size and has a +2 Defense modifier, is now to be considered Medium (no size modifier), then Shrinking has suddenly become less useful, and attacking objects much easier.

THAT SAID, GGtG gives rules for using weapons that are outside of one's own size category. If a pistol IS to be considered Tiny, based on the chart in the core book, there will be penalties imposed for using it. Which, itself, makes paying extra to make it small kind of a raw deal.

My thinking is that the intention may have been to replicate the D&D 3rd Ed. rules for weapon size category, something that, IIRC, is clearly differentiated from character size or object size (but maybe isn't. It's been awhile). It seems to me that the creators were trying to do two different things: 1) Categorize weapons by the size of their intended wielders; and 2) Categorize objects by their approximate dimensions and by advantages derived from those dimensions. In a sudden case of really bad content control, they gave them both these categorizations the same name.

Anyway, I think I've more or less sorted it out for MY purposes, but I do agree that an official clarification is needed. Along with striking that rule about Device Miniaturization as an Extra.

[chatty]

Though, it looks like people have kind of already said what I said.

[Rivalsan]

Ok, this is probably the SILLIEST arguement I've seen in a long, long time.

First, In my (not so) hunble opinion, anyone who wants to play a game by a strict literal reading of the rules really needs to relax. Its a game.

Also - Its really clear, looking at this, what it means. The pistol is medium? So its 6 feet long? I don't think so. Its designed for a medium sized person to use. Someone with four ranks of the Growth power in use is NOT going to be able to hold and fire a pistol. THey could maybe use it as a very small CLUB, but not as a pistol.

The Tiny aspect is that the gun is small. Its easier to secrete on your person. You can hide it in a shoulder or small of the back or ankle holster, or carry it in a pocket, and you'd get to use sleight of hand etc on it.

[Grendal]

[quote="WillyPete"][quote="Frozen Yakman"]
Astral Projection I could see as a device which grants that power to someone in the HQ, but I don't think I'd allow the entire HQ to 'Astrally Project'! Would you want to leave the entire team's bodies behind?
[/quote]

Astral Projection would be useful to represent a base that had an intelligence that could move around invisibly and manifest like a ghost.
In fact it might be a ghost.

[Wordmaker]

Just had a look at the 1st Ed Errata, since I'm about the start off a campaign using 1st Ed rules.

Why was the Reincarnation power removed? Regeneration's Ressurection Extra doesn't come close to the versatility and variety of uses you can use Reincarnation for.