T5 Personal Combat System Review, Opinion, and Problems

[Licheking]

My solution to ammo was to make it TL and Weapon Descriptor dependent as follows:-

Revolvers = 6 rounds
Pistols = TL rounds
Rifles = TL rounds
Shotguns = TL/2 rounds
Machineguns = TLx10 rounds
Guns = TL
Gatling = TLx10
Assault Descriptor = TLx5
Combat Descriptor = TLx3
Battle Descriptor = TLx2
Body Descriptor = TL/2

Then add in the Options section x2 Ammo +1 Burden

Make the cost of a loaded clip equal to 1% of the weapons cost and most of the ammo problems go away.

Certainly this is the way i'm going with it, but i'm also going to a MT combat round (6 Seconds) which still uses the Human speed 1/2 so converts quite easily.

I would be interested what people think of this little house rule.

 

[Licheking]

i should also point out you should take the best possible result for ammo, so if you picked an assault shotgun at TL10 you would get 25 rounds not 5 rounds.

 

[BytePro]

Supplement 4 - he explicitly posted he's using ' MT combat round (6 Seconds) '

In one 6 second round, an M-16 could reasonably be:

One round in single shot
6 rounds in semi-auto (half 30 rnd mag in burst)
30 rnd Mag (plus reload time) on full auto
​

 

[Murdoc]

For dealing with ammo, it seems reasonable to me. My question is how would it (along with the 6 second round) affect all the other combat rules? That's the problem I run into with some house rules, everything's connected.

 

[BytePro]

Range band time -

Walking at 1.4 m/s (typical) from Band-0 to Band-1 makes more sense.
Walking 45m (nominal) for Band-1 to Band-2 in one round, doesn't.

I think the minimum distance between Band-1 to Band-2 would be more like 25m. Record 50m dash times are around 5.5s. So, I'd buy Speed-2 covering Band-1 to Band-2 in one round, Band-0 to Band-2 on a roll. Speed-1 would take 3 to 5 rounds.

 

[Finn]

o: :rofl: :nonono:

Not only is that freaking obvious - fiat spectacular results based on arbitrary dice rolls are silly given the nature of the rest of the structured task mechanics, which attempt to adjust odds based on character stats and situations. It says even if I may not have any real chance of regular success/failure, I do have a real, fixed, irregardless of everything in the game, chance at spectacular success/failure... that is a spectacular rules fail, IMO.

MgT has the right notion - scaled outcome based on range from target value. I want the experienced, atypical stat guy to have a greater chance (or the only chance) for spectacular anything outside of fiat 'luck' I bestow for storyline or exceptional roleplay. As Ref, I'll prefer to control (and self limit) the fiat - not the dice.

My interpretation of this rule, at least for spectacular successes, was it was an attempt to simulate how the harder the task is, the more likely any given success will be a spectacular one. Take a Hail Mary basketball shot.. now, you'll either make it, or you won't, but if you do, it is far more likely to be spectacular. This assumes something that I can't verify right now, which is that if you roll three 1s, you still need the sum of the dice to be <= your stat + skill for it to count as a success.

Now, I dunno if this is good or bad.. I suspect I'll give it a go to see how it works. But I do believe this was the intent of this particular rule.

 

[BytePro]

My interpretation of this rule, at least for spectacular successes, was it was an attempt to simulate how the harder the task is, the more likely any given success will be a spectacular one. Take a Hail Mary basketball shot.. now, you'll either make it, or you won't, but if you do, it is far more likely to be spectacular.

That's the nature of the task, but spectacular means 'something' above and beyond 'mere success', to me. So that 'Hail Mary' shot, if a spectacular success, would mean one not only made the shot, but got extra points when the ball bounced back up and through the hoop again!

This assumes something that I can't verify right now, which is that if you roll three 1s, you still need the sum of the dice to be <= your stat + skill for it to count as a success.

That's better - at least it avoids the chance for spectacular success with no chance for regular success except when the target is less than 4 on difficulty 3D.

If the skill/attributes which determine target number, also determine number of dice, then I can see the odds being better for spectacular success - but that fails for spectacular failure... and I'm still left seeing skill/attributes not impacting spectacular odds - and that's a mechanic fail, IMO, given the entire nature of using detailed task mechanics.

 

[Finn]

That's the nature of the task, but spectacular means 'something' above and beyond 'mere success', to me. So that 'Hail Mary' shot, if a spectacular success, would mean one not only made the shot, but got extra points when the ball bounced back up and through the hoop again!


That's better - at least it avoids the chance for spectacular success with no chance for regular success except when the target is less than 4 on difficulty 3D.

If the skill/attributes which determine target number, also determine number of dice, then I can see the odds being better for spectacular success - but that fails for spectacular failure... and I'm still left seeing skill/attributes not impacting spectacular odds - and that's a mechanic fail, IMO, given the entire nature of using detailed task mechanics.

I was merely pointing out what I believe the authors were trying to do. I'm inclined to agree with you, in both statements. In fact, if I remember correctly, being less skilled can actually improve your chances of Spectacular Success, due to the This is Hard rule. If you are not skilled enough, you increase the difficulty, and therefore roll more dice, increasing your chance of a rollng three 1s. Of course, you are less likely to succeed, so there is that.

 

[BytePro]

I was merely pointing out what I believe the authors were trying to do. I'm inclined to agree with you, in both statements. In fact, if I remember correctly, being less skilled can actually improve your chances of Spectacular Success, due to the This is Hard rule. If you are not skilled enough, you increase the difficulty, and therefore roll more dice, increasing your chance of a rollng three 1s. Of course, you are less likely to succeed, so there is that.

All great points - didn't mean to imply otherwise.

As I understand so far, its not anything 'broken', but definitely the type of approach that fits a pretty DM free mechanic, not Traveller, IMO.

 

[Almuric]

Well, we know, in theory, that T5 is meant to be a Toolbox (or did this change somewhere along the line?) ... so, yes, a supplement would seem to be necessary.

Hmmm. Striker5 @ 600 pages! The next Far Future Kickstarter!!!

<grin>

Hah. I expect you or I could probably write it, too

 

[Licheking]

MT uses range bands too, but only for measuring the ranges between attacker and target. Movement was done in squares you could move on a 1.5m grid, with speed 1 being 10m i think, and speed 2 being 50m but i would have to go home and check my copy of MT to be sure.

I have always preferred a more detailed granular combat system, minutes of fighting just doesn't sit well with me its why i will be looking at speeding up the space combat as well, to maybe minutes. but we will see.

 

[David Johansen]

I'd be all for a proper T5 Striker. But the Kickstarter should have miniatures and they should be good plastic ones because those do very well on Kickstarter.

Personally I favor 25mm (1/64) but 28mm (who knows it ranges from 1/64 to 1/48) is the most popular. There is a pretty strong 15mm sf community as well. Really you'd probably want to start with 28mm for the rpg and do 15mm (1/100) as is traditional for Striker.

For 28mm I'd like to see a sprue with player characters and mercenaries including a Vargr, Aslan, and K'kree. I'd also like military sprues and vehicles.

In 15mm I'd like a two or three piece Trepedia and Astrin with a squad of Imperial Marines (prior and constant use GW) and a set with grav sleds, robots, and powered armor for the Zhos. A set for each major race would be great.

 

[Supplement Four]

T5's Heavy Influence of Stats.



One of the things I'm not liking about the game is the heavy influence of a character attributes. The point I'm trying to make was recently expressed by Bob Weaver in THIS CT post.

In that thread, we're talking about the Tactics skill, and Bob makes the excellent point:

I work with a lot of professionals in Higher Education, even some that teach history and study WWI & WWII, etc. This does not at all mean that they can lead a squad in setting up an enfilade, or preparing defensive positions. Maybe some of them can, but it is not because they've got a high EDU score.

I completely agree with what Bob says. A character would know Tactics because of his tactical training, represented in the game through his level of Tactics skill. The character's EDU may have a little influence on the task, but the biggest influence on success should be the skill, not the attribute.

The T5 task system, in most cases, has that backwards. A character with EDU-C and Tactics-2 has a high target number because of his EDU value, not his skill.

Now, the This Is Hard Rule does go quite a way into making the T5 system easier to swallow, but I'm not sure it's enough.

In the T5 world, Bob's teachers above, if they had any Tactics training at all, they'd all be pretty good tacticians.

I have a problem with the EDU-C, Tactics-2 character having a higher chance of probability for success on a task than a soldier, trained in Tactics, but also a high school drop-out: EDU-5, Tacitcs 5.



The Tactics-5 character should blow the Tactics-2 character out of the water, regardless of Education. But, the dice don't reflect that.

Even with the TIH rule in place.

For example, let's say it's a 3D Tactics task to evaluate a situation and report back to base.

The EDU-C, Tactics-2 Teacher has a target number of 14. And, since the character's skill is less than the difficulty, a +1D penalty is applied.

So, the Teacher would have to roll 4D for 14 or less to evaluate the situation. That's a 56% chance of success.



Now, the EDU-5, Tactics-5 Soldier does the same task. He's got to roll 3D for 10 or less. That's a 50% chance of success.



See where I'm getting at?

The T5 task system is flawed on a fundamental level*. It's not an easy fix.



*And, I add to this a point I made in a previous post: Spectacular Success in this game gets easier the harder the task, and SS is not possible on the easiest of tasks.





EDIT: To add to this point, T5 describes as 1 skill level representing, generally, 1 year of training in that skill. And, in the above example, even with the TIH Rule, we see a character with 2 years of tacitical training having a higher chance of success than a character with 5 years of tactical training--all because of general, abstract education.

So, the Lawyer, EDU-A, who gets drafted and learns Tactics-1 in boot camp, is typically better at Tactics than the Squad Leader that's seen the elephant--who has EDU-5, Tactics-5.

Without the TIH rule, these two would really be out of whack.

 

[Supplement Four]

T5 HTH Combat


Fighting, hand to hand, is covered in two places. We see it on page 135 as part of the description of Opposed Throws, where two different Brawling tasks are presented.

The first example we see is a single task to resolve a brawl. How much fun is that?

To win a brawl.
Difficult (3D) < Str + Brawling
Opposed (up to 4). Resolves the brawl in one task.
All losers receive 2D hits. The winner is unscathed.

First off, where did the 2D damage come from? Where did the 3D difficulty come from? Why is it limited to just 4 people? Isn't this a bar brawl?

And...why is the winner of the toss unscathed?

That's a bad rule, imo.



Let's look at the second rule, also listed on page 135:

To resolve one round of a brawl.
Difficult (3D) < Str + Brawling
Opposed (up to 6). Resolves one round of the brawl.

With this task, the text tells us to give only the loser--the character with the highest throw--2D damage for that round, then repeat the process for the next round, until the brawl ends.

Again...that ain't a great way to simulate combat, even HTH combat.





So, now, we turn to the other part of the book that discusses HTH combat. That's under the Fighter skill, page 158.

What was said above applied to the two examples given here--except that the one round method gives the loser 3D damage instead of 2D damage. I'm sure that's a typo, and I'll let that slide. One of those two damage ratings is correct.

Still...I don't know where the 3D difficulty is coming from. And, I still don't like the rule at all. It's not a fun bar brawl at all.




The last place I've found in T5 that could possibly cover HTH fighting is in the person combat chapter, starting on page 211.

But, we've got a real issue here, too. If you use the Fighting Task, your difficulty is keyed to Range. Fighting HTH, you and your target is at Very Short Range or less. This means that your attack task will be done with a difficulty of 1D...

...which means that you will always hit.

So, HTH fighting, or even melee fighting with hand weapons, becomes an exercise of just rolling damage and seeing which side goes down first.

Really?

Yeah, that's crap.

What about two swordsmen, going at it. Both will automatically be damaged by the other unless they are wearing armor (that is not penetrated)?

There's some real problems here.

 

[BytePro]

The T5 task system, in most cases, has that backwards.
...
I have a problem with the EDU-C, Tactics-2 character having a higher chance of probability for success on a task than a soldier, trained in Tactics, but also a high school drop-out: EDU-5, Tacitcs 5.
...
The T5 task system is flawed on a fundamental level*. It's not an easy fix.

Was my initial gut reaction... hasn't changed so far.

Originally presumed there would be some offset values, multipliers or changing die count based on skill - but it very much sounds like the higher/lower the stat, the better/worse the character in a disproportionate fashion. I also wonder about the 2D and 3D checks with characters with attribs of 11 and 12 and how common skill levels of 6+ are...

The way DMs work with peak point of the odds curves sliding with increasing die is another thing that sours me on the mechanics.

...There's some real problems here.

Looks like.

Even if you've got some things wrong, I suspect T5's abstraction of hand to hand would be unsatisfying to my roleplay centric approach.

Overall the mechanics seem to place more emphasis on ease and just straight up gaming, with less regard to story/roleplay support. Yet, in parts, the detailing - such as wound handling - seems to go the other direction (good for roleplay support, but over-complex implementing). Probably not the right balance for me.

Regardless, I'm still interested in T5 (and open minded) - so Thanks for sharing S4!

 

[whulorigan]

T5's Heavy Influence of Stats.

One of the things I'm not liking about the game is the heavy influence of a character attributes.

The T5 task system is flawed on a fundamental level*. It's not an easy fix.

A while back in the T4 Forum, PathfinderAP posted a fix he had for the T4 Task System (which is a similar roll under stat+skill system):
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19462&highlight=PathfinderAP&page=2 :

I came up with a New Task Resolution for T4 years ago...

The problem was with the Stat and Skill numbers,
they did not balance out, the Stats were the dominant element, making Skills less worth having. (I'm sure you already know this though)

raising the skill numbers was not an option, neither was lowering the stats, as I wanted to retain the classical look of the orignal Traveller,

it took me awhile to crack this, but I did it,

Task Difficulties
Easy 1D
Average 2D
Difficult 3D
Formidable 4D
Staggering 5D
Impossible 6D
Hopeless 7D

(Yes, also got rid of the 'half-die')


Okay, in this system you still add your Skill to your Stat
But now your Skill level is also a dice pool,
that you add to the Task Difficulties dice pool,
Rolling both pools together and Keeping only the lowest number of dice equal to the Task Difficulty,

Sound confusing?

Example: Captain Jamison (UPP 879C9A) is in trouble again, he draws his pistol (He has Pistol-3) as he dives for cover at the start of the fire fight, he states that is going to return fire on his aggressor, the GM tells him at this range its a Difficult Task (3D), Jamison's player adds his Dex of 7 and Pistol skill of 3 and gets a 10, he needs to roll 3 dice lower than 10,
he then adds his Skill dice (Pistol-3 = 3D) to his Difficult Task dice

So thats Difficult Task 3D + Skill 3D = 6D

Rolling all 6D he gets 6.4.3.5.2.1, he keeps the lowest 3D (the 3,2 and 1 for a total of 6, well under the 10 he needed)

Jamison returns fire and lands a solid shot,



Does that make sense?

Now the fix above was created for T4 obviously, but do you think this could be modified, and some version of it implemented, to fix the T5 mechanic?

 

[aramis]

A while back in the T4 Forum, PathfinderAP posted a fix he had for the T4 Task System (which is a similar roll under stat+skill system):
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19462&highlight=PathfinderAP&page=2 :





Now the fix above was created for T4 obviously, but do you think this could be modified, and some version of it implemented, to fix the T5 mechanic?

T4 and T5 generally scale difficulties and attributes the same, but T5 skills are a bit higher from what I've seen.

 

[whulorigan]

T4 and T5 generally scale difficulties and attributes the same, but T5 skills are a bit higher from what I've seen.

Do you think the T4 fix could be appropriately modified for T5?

 

[Murdoc]

It looks intriguing, but I'd want to see probability charts like the ones in the T5 book before I decided on it. It could be unbalancing it the other way.

 

[Supplement Four]

It looks intriguing, but I'd want to see probability charts like the ones in the T5 book before I decided on it. It could be unbalancing it the other way.

Yes, it would mess with the probability.

Figuring out how much would not be an easy assignment.

It is an interesting idea. But, it also seems a little fussy. I think I just like two dice and some modifiers for a target. That's not T5, but the more I read, the more I go back to my beloved CT.