Saving T5 or How to make an old Traveller actually accept and like T5?

[Original_Carl]

Hmm ... that doesn't look right does it. I haven't paid close attention to non-firearm combat. I'll have to get back to you on that one. The rule on p158 does seem to look better.

It does. I've been messing with melee combat in T5 and it now seems clear that the examples in the personal combat chapter are for ranged combat and that melee should be an opposed c+s check.

A difficult task opposing check makes sense and is easy to implement. This neatly solves the problem of multiple opponents in melee, too.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Nice.

It does. I've been messing with melee combat in T5 and it now seems clear that the examples in the personal combat chapter are for ranged combat and that melee should be an opposed c+s check.

A difficult task opposing check makes sense and is easy to implement. This neatly solves the problem of multiple opponents in melee, too.

While I pride myself on my Knowledge of T5 ACS and CharGen and somewhat the Makers, Combat has been an area in which I have remained weak in. I do like the logic in this solution, you can't fight bullets, but you can Fight another Sophont.

 

[Original_Carl]

While I pride myself on my Knowledge of T5 ACS and CharGen and somewhat the Makers, Combat has been an area in which I have remained weak in. I do like the logic in this solution, you can't fight bullets, but you can Fight another Sophont.

I like it because it solves my Kung Fu master conundrum. How do you take out 5 guys at once? Attack one and then knock down the rest as they come after you. You couldn't do this under the old rules, and no matter what your Fighting, melee against multiple opponents ended with you face down on the floor.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Ah...

I like it because it solves my Kung Fu master conundrum. How do you take out 5 guys at once? Attack one and then knock down the rest as they come after you. You couldn't do this under the old rules, and no matter what your Fighting, melee against multiple opponents ended with you face down on the floor.

Yeah, I can see that, though, I for the most part figure that Kung Fu master or not, numbers still count. Or as we call around these parts, a beat down.

 

[andycowley]

I posted this in another thread discussing melee combat ... I think its relevant here given the recent direction of this discussion thread ...

Why not try an opposed task along the same lines as described in the 'brawling' example .... perhaps something like this

Melee Combat (per combat round)
Hard (3D)< Dex + Fighter + Mods
Opposed (up to 2)
Highest effect (Target number - Roll) inflicts Damage per melee weapon on loser

NOTE; If facing more than one opponent you can apply the 'divided attention' rule on page 137 .... meaning that each additional opponent will reduce the sole fighters Dex by the number of opponents

 

[Supplement Four]

I posted this in another thread discussing melee combat ... I think its relevant here given the recent direction of this discussion thread ...

Isn't that almost exactly what I suggested nine months ago? Fixing T5 - Brawling.

There's no need to make it an opposed throw. Since the dice make the difficulty in T5, opposed throws are a bit awkward. 3D difficulty is enough. Just subtract the foe's skill as a modifier to the attack.

Brawling & Blade Combat Fighting Task

3D < (C + S) + (DEF) + (Mods)

C+S = Characteristic + Skill
DEF = Opponent's Defense represented by the negative value of opponent's skill
Mods = Modifiiers that may apply to the situation





Optional Rule: Multiple Attacks

Combatants may attempt two or more attacks during the combat round at the cost of +1D to difficulty per extra attack. Thus, a character attempting two attacks in a round would make each attack using 4D difficulty.

If this optional rule is used, then Ref's are encouraged split the attacks as fairly as possible. For example, if Arid is making three attacks against Zoedin, then allow Arid the first attack, followed by Zoedin, followed by Arid's other two attacks. And, all of Arid's attacks will be made at 5D difficulty.

 

[Spaceresearcher]

That T5 Players Manual

I've been thinking a fair bit on fixing T5 and even updating the errors, still leaves a system that requires much interpretation and familiarity with past rules sets to be truly useful out of the box. Most folks who are finding it playable are able to adapt from years of playing Traveller, but for complete newbies it's certainly not a book I'd recommend to get people into Traveller(unless I wanted to scare them off).

What I think will fix it, is the Players Manual, with a complete section for Character generation that's bug free and gives the player the ability to create characters just like in the original CT without out any issues. Then the rest would be a guide to playing T5 using the main rule book as a reference to data adding comments for any errors(seriously while I really do love the people who are dedicated to putting together an errata to fix issues in the main book), a 10 page+ errata which requires you to literally go through and paste new tables and figures into the book to make it usable is for the new Traveller not acceptable. (A friend commented to me that they had already done all of this for MT, so for T5, those days should have ended long ago).

In short it's obvioulsy been rushed to market with very little to no editing or quality control process worthy of a game like this. It's a real shame. I would have been happy to wait an entire year or more in order for this tomb to be rock solid. As it stands, it's sadly being declared 'dead in the water' by many Travellers and that's sad as there is a lot of goodness, it's just poorly delivered. Even if there is a T6 I don't think it's going to be supported even half as much as T5 was.

Another Traveller exclaimed that for him to accept T5, he wants it completely fixed up and a corrected version delivered free of charge. To be honest I can understand his feelings, being a TNE fan where TNE had very little issues full stop and was certainly detailed(perhaps not like T5 but not far behind), the main difference is that TNE was a quality work, T5 doesn't even come close by comparison.

 

[Dagrill]

And now for robject...(I still, almost, believe he's one of the undead who never sleeps...). If it wasn't for his dedication to working through literally dozens of ship designs, and posting them, with the thought process and rational behind them, I'd have never touched T5 again. He's been a one man ambassador for T5 without being an apologist. IMO, if T5 pulls out of it's current crash dive, Marc owes him big time for work he's done.

Knowing what I know about T5, I wouldn't have bought it intending to game from. I would have purchased it to "keep the collection complete" (and that's a piss poor reason to spend the $100).

Can I echo the praise for Robject. I had designed a few characters, but he has helped me to understand how to do T5 spaceships, now all I need is someone to do a world design....

Regards and many thanks

David

 

[Dagrill]

Knowing what I know about T5, I wouldn't have bought it intending to game from. I would have purchased it to "keep the collection complete" (and that's a piss poor reason to spend the $100).

I spent about $90 including postage, couldn't justify the $150 for the book, but would have probably bought it, if it had been published a few years ago
(instead of new era or T4).

Regards

David

 

[Spaceresearcher]

Perhaps after this revision, it can finally be the system it was heralded to be.

With the exciting news of a complete revised book, how do fellow Travellers now feel about T5?

For me, it's given me hope again that finally a decent, official Traveller rules set will see the light of day and work out of the box with no 'errata's' or quick fixes required to use it. Something you can hand to any beginner and they can learn all about and play Traveller.

FINGERS CROSSED!!!!

 

[Hemdian]

With the exciting news of a complete revised book, how do fellow Travellers now feel about T5?

I already liked T5. Or at least the fundamental concepts, though there were issues in its execution. My fear is that some people didn't like some of those concepts and in 'fixing' it will throw the baby out with the bath water. So until I see the revised book I'm just really really nervous.

 

[robject]

I already liked T5. Or at least the fundamental concepts, though there were issues in its execution. My fear is that some people didn't like some of those concepts and in 'fixing' it will throw the baby out with the bath water. So until I see the revised book I'm just really really nervous.

No - The five guys provide the QA from their experience and drive to make it work, so Marc gets five different forms of constructive criticism, and they're closely watching. I think it is actually now receiving the sort of playtesting that's good for it. It took a physical release and the resulting concern to flush out the right guys to do it, perhaps.

Two reasons I say 'No'. One, Don gathered errata and is overseeing the correction process, and Don likes T5. Two, Marc is the one doing the rewrites, and Marc likes T5.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yep, it is Marc doing the rule writing. The Five are just reading what he is doing and providing feedback. Marc selects what feedback he thinks is valid, molds it, and incorporates it--or not. The final product may or may not be something wholeheartedly approve of by the Five. It will be what Marc wants it to be.

 

[robject]

And Don and I will also get to see what Marc and his Gang Of Five come up with.

Now that should not necessarily reassure you, because we were there when Marc wrote it the first twelve times, and look what happened. But for the first time in seven years or so we will get to look at it with fresh eyes, which is what *I* need anyway. I've been using T5 combat in our games for a couple years now, and though my players are terribly good sports and all, an improvement would be welcome -- and noticeable.

After all this settles, maybe I'll post what I wanted Marc to do with the combat system. Probably just mad ravings, but I thought it was a good idea at the time.

 

[mike wightman]

I will buy it.

I will still not use the task system, i will not use the character generation, i will not use the combat system or the ship building or combat.

I will mine it for useful stuff, just like I have done with pre-revised T5.

 

[robject]

The Five are just reading what he is doing and providing feedback. Marc selects what feedback he thinks is valid, molds it, and incorporates it--or not. The final product may or may not be something wholeheartedly approve of by the Five. It will be what Marc wants it to be.

I'd put a better spin on it - The Five were peer-chosen, and Marc is interested and engaged with their (your) excellent constructive criticism.

 

[robject]

I will buy it.

I will still not use the task system, i will not use the character generation, i will not use the combat system or the ship building or combat.

I will mine it for useful stuff, just like I have done with pre-revised T5.

That makes me happy, Mike, that you find things of use in T5. That's enough.

 

[Vladika]

That makes me happy, Mike, that you find things of use in T5. That's enough.

Rob, there is a LOT in T5 that is very useful. (And THAT comes from a detractor!)

 

[mike wightman]

Yup, the book is worth it for the makers, the technology chapters, the robots, the sophonts etc - so many new tools to add stuff to the setting.

I still think Marc missed a trick by not having the makers as high TL fabrication units - a cross between a super advanced 3d printer and a nano factory, that's how I'm using them in-setting. Instant upgrade to 21st century sci-fi from the '70s rut... ;

 

[robject]

I still think Marc missed a trick by not having the makers as high TL fabrication units - a cross between a super advanced 3d printer and a nano factory, that's how I'm using them in-setting. Instant upgrade to 21st century sci-fi from the '70s rut... ;

Actually, you gave Don and I a head-smacking moment with that, and we agree with you there. Marc might, too. I recommended text for the equipment chapter on that.

And it's in the errata file.