T5 Personal Combat System Review, Opinion, and Problems

[Murdoc]

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.

I don't think that Tactics is a good example for the point you are trying to make. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that this skill is flawed, as I see it, in a different way. To my thinking, it is simply paired with the wrong attribute. I think INT makes much more sense. Problem solving ability and memory would be more of an asset to someone trying to figure out the best tactical moves than, and you say, "abstract education". If it were based on INT instead of ED, then it would make far more sense that someone with such a high intelligence but less training/experience could match wits with a dullard with lots of training.

Now that being said, I just had a thought along these lines that I think may support your point. If we were to, for the sake of argument, take the CT/MT attribute and skill balance as a baseline and compare it to T5, what would we get? Skill 3 in something was the same bonus as you get with having an attribute at 15, because the attribute was divided by 5. Now in T5, skill and attribute are added together equally. This means that attribute of 15 should be equal to skill of 15, and by that logic, attribute 7 equal to skill 7. Now in CT/MT terms, this would be equal to a skill of 1, which we saw all the time. But in T5, how often do we see skills of 7? Or even 5? Not very often in my experience. So I think that the problem is not so much that the skill and attribute are weighted the same (this happens in most RPGs that I am familiar with, because it is simple), but rather that our characters get so few skills in comparison. And sure, they may get a greater number of skills than in CT/MT, but this is watered down by the fact that such skills are random, across many possible charts, making the statistical likelihood of getting any one skill multiple times less. See what I mean: In CT/MT, it wasn't that hard to get a skill of 2, equal to a stat bonus of 10. Now how hard is it to get the same skill 10 times in a row in T5? Near impossible (outside of formal education anyway) I'd say. Instead, I get great heaps of skills at levels 1-3.

So I think that therein lies the problem, and either characters need more skills, or players need more say in which skills they get so they can concentrate them better.

 

[fridge]

I don't think that Tactics is a good example for the point you are trying to make. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that this skill is flawed, as I see it, in a different way. To my thinking, it is simply paired with the wrong attribute. I think INT makes much more sense. Problem solving ability and memory would be more of an asset to someone trying to figure out the best tactical moves than, and you say, "abstract education". If it were based on INT instead of ED, then it would make far more sense that someone with such a high intelligence but less training/experience could match wits with a dullard with lots of training.

In T5 skills are not paired and locked in to a particular attribute. The GM picks the attribute based on what is being attempted. For example look at the Medic skill:
- diagnosing uses C5
- treatment uses Dex

Other skills have similar examples.

It may also be breaking the activity down to sufficient task rolls...like has been done for Medic. For example, it may need Tactics and Int to determine the best place for an ambush, then you might use Stealth+Str to set up camouflaged locations to lie in wait, then stealth+End to stay still long enough to keep surprise as their point man passes by.

 

[Murdoc]

Yes, I am aware of that fridge, but what we are talking about is the Tactics Mod, which is stated as being C5+Tactics-2D. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for that use and it should be paired with C4 instead (which sounds kinda funny if taken out of context, well maybe not all the way out of context. ).

For that matter I don't see how Edu helps the Close Order Drill either.

 

[fridge]

S4 was talking task rolls, you replied to that, I replied to you. Looks like S4 and yourself are discussing different things, though not obvious until your last message:rofl:o:

 

[Murdoc]

Um, no, we weren't. It looks as if you are the one who is confused, perhaps because I was talking about two things both related to what he said. I was talking about how the task rolls work too (or more specifically, the balance between skill levels and attributes and how they contribute to task resolution); that was the point of the second part of my post, to show something else that supported his position (that they were in fact out of balance). The first part was just me pointing out that Tactics+Edu was perhaps not the best example for this position because of another problem with it I believe I've found (the "different thing" you think I was talking only about). I realize that he could have just as easily used any other skill, or combination of skill and attribute; I was in fact suggesting that that probably would have been a good idea. So no, we were not talking about different things at all. I brought up new things related to his point yes, but not different entirely.

 

[Supplement Four]

I used Tactics as my example because I liked how Bob Weaver made the case about how having a high attribute doesn't automatically give a person expertise in an area of training. That's the realm of the skill.

One of the things I love about CT is that, in a situation where stat has little influence on the task, the Ref just calls for a task that ignores stat all together.

For example, when reviving a character from low berth, the character operating the berth gets a +1 on the task if he has Medic-2 or better. No stat is referenced (though the patient's stats can influence the roll).

That customizability is one of CT's strengths, imo.

 

[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.

Just thinking out loud, here. I really don't like the HTH mechanic at all. There should be a chance that neither is damaged during the round.

I've got two ideas to throw out there. Neither are well thought out yet--just germs of an idea.



Germ 1: What if Brawling (Unarmed--whatever the skill is called. You could use his for Blade Combat, too) skill defined the difficulty for your opponent to hit you?

Attacking someone with Brawling-3 skill? It's a 3D task to hit that person in a Brawling combat round. Attacking someone with Unarmed-1? It's only a 1D task to hit that person in combat.

You would use the standard Fighting Task (seen on page 212).

Instead of Range giving you the difficulty, your opponent's skill at defending himself will give you the difficulty.

We'd have to figure some sort of penalty if an unarmed character fights a character with a blade (hard to block).

Looking at this, my first question would be: How easy is it to get Brawling-5, Brawling-6, and above in this game? Because those guys, using this system, would be near impossible to hit. That should be reserved for masters.



Germ 2: MT melee weapons had Block modifiers. How about adding Block modifiers to BladeMaker.

The Block modifier would define the difficulty of hitting the target. Humans and Humanoids would default to Block=3 (so, in keeping with T5's HTH task, it's a 3D difficulty task to hit a foe).

Other weapons may add to that. For example, a sword may be rated at Block=4, meaning it's a 4D task to attack that person successfully.

I'm not keen on these numbers, but you get the general gist.

 

[BytePro]

My gut says difference in skill providing the die count:

So, if the difference is 2, then use 2D; if 6, then use 6D. If they are only one skill level apart, its just a 1D.

Differences in STR/DEX would have a big impact...

If they are equally skilled, then they both do damage to each other each round, or nobody does or its just an attribute opposed roll.​

Just throwing that out, as it were...

 

[Supplement Four]

My gut says difference in skill providing the die count:

I thought about that before posting, and the reason I didn't mention it was that you'll get a lot of 1D difficulties that way...which brings us back to square one anyway.

T5 indicates that average competent skill is Skill-3. So, 3D sounds about right, to fight a trained fighter looking to defend himself. Match him with a novice, and the difficulty is 2D.

And, it also says that the Brawling-3 guy gets a 2D difficulty to hit the Brawling-1 guy. The same on the reverse: Brawling-1 gets a 2D to hit Brawling-3.

The only advantage Brawling-3 has is 2 more points from skill.

So, if the STR-6, Brawling-3 guy fights the STR-9, Brawling-1 guy, both fighters use 2D difficulty, and the Brawling-1 guy is more likely to hit.

 

[BytePro]

I thought about that before posting, and the reason I didn't mention it was that you'll get a lot of 1D difficulties that way...which brings us back to square one anyway.

That could be fixed by simply adding the difference to 1D or 2D, but the bigger issue with my half baked idea...
... the difference would be signed and I'm a little stumped on what '-2D' would mean?

Meh, not that I plan on thinking too hard on how to fix T5 mechanics - the concept of attribute+skill level as used is fundamentally dingo droppings, IMO.

In my experience (pun), skill beats attributes in most things - a strong guy's strength is easily used against him by skilled combatants in anything other than weight lifting contests (even then, technique can win out over innate ability). Further, in context of the game, increasing attributes is way more useful than obtaining skills - it sounds like 6 JoT+ buckets of min/max-ing goodness...

 

[Licheking]

except its always been hard to min/max in Traveller in any incarnation due to the inherently random nature of character gen.

Anyway i thought if you had a completely unskilled character the test was one level more difficult as well. So an Easy task becomes 3d for the unskilled character, increase the difficulty 1 level for no skill and also apply the This Is Hard rule.

Also don't forget the system works best with characters in the average range of 777777 and a few skills at 3 and maybe one at 5 for their main professional skill. PC's by their very nature are a cut above the rest, although in all the characters that have been created so far for T5 i have yet to see one with F for any attribute and the highest so far is C and that's in Edu and the character started with 4 rolled. I love the new further education system it actually works. One character started with letters for all his physicals, now at mustering out they are all average due to age and injury, but his starting Intelligence of 4 is now A.

 

[aramis]

except its always been hard to min/max in Traveller in any incarnation due to the inherently random nature of character gen.

Not true. TNE and T4 allow picking skills, rules as written. So does MGT. GURPS Traveller and Traveller For Hero are both point gen licensed adaptations.

 

[Echo]

I may be being dense here, but if the difficulty is based on range, then how do you engage in hand to hand combat without it being ridiculously easy to hit?

 

[Murdoc]

You don't really, but I think the idea is that because the rounds are 1 minute long, chances are that sometime in that minute you'll land at least a couple of blows.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

It is.

I may be being dense here, but if the difficulty is based on range, then how do you engage in hand to hand combat without it being ridiculously easy to hit?

Not that I am sort of Kung Fu master or something, but my own brief encounters with melee and hand to hand combat lots of shots were attempted and several always land.

So, seems about right to my non-combat self.

 

[Supplement Four]

I may be being dense here, but if the difficulty is based on range, then how do you engage in hand to hand combat without it being ridiculously easy to hit?

Look up-thread a bit. I discuss HTH combat.

 

[cuTTer]

Distance or Range?

Difficulty comes from Range. You use the Range Band number for the number of dice rolled.

Range Band 1 = Very Short Range, 5m or less.
Range Band 2 = Short Range, 6-50m.
Range Band 3 = Medium Range, 51-150m.
Range Band 4 = Long Range, 151-500m.
Range Band 5 = Very Long Range, 501-1000m

p.36 has the values you quote listed as 'Distance'. However, it also has 'Range Band Width',

1 = 3 m to 25 m
2 = 25 m to 100 m
3 = 100 m to 300 m
4 = 300 m to 750 m
5 = 750 m to 3,000 m

Which do we use for combat? Is a guy standing at 510 metres at R 4 or R 5?

 

[Nerhesi]

Quick question regarding the 1-minute round problems -

What happens if you change combat to 5 or 10 second rounds? Does that mess up anything else? At least personal combat

 

[Licheking]

so far i have had no problems changing combat to 6 second rounds, the action flows just as quickly and other than a little tweaking with the movement rules nothing needs significant change if you don't want too.

 

[Supplement Four]

Quick question regarding the 1-minute round problems -

What happens if you change combat to 5 or 10 second rounds? Does that mess up anything else? At least personal combat

Movement in personal combat. Distance you can move is determined by Range Bands and rounds.

You'd have to change all that.