T5 Personal Combat System Review, Opinion, and Problems

[Supplement Four]

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?

Good catch, Cutter!

I was a little off on the Range Bands above (going by what I know from CT and MT Range Bands--T5 is different).

According to page 37, Medium Range is about 150m distant. Each Range Band runs from about half the one before it to about half the one in front of it.

Medium Range is actually anywhere from 100m to about 300m. We use 150m as a rule of thumb.

 

[Supplement Four]

Here's an idea for the combat round length.

What if you played out the round in one minute rounds with several phases? Something like this....


One Minute Combat Round

Attack Phase 1: Characters can attack up to two targets. A Hasty Attack must be used to attack two targets.

Movement: All combatants move.

Attack Phase 2: Characters can attack up to two targets, just like Attack Phase 1.

 

[Echo]

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

I've read that now. Is it seriously the point that people are having to invent house rules because there isn't a genuinely integrated HtH element in the personal combat chapter!?

 

[Licheking]

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

You'd have to change all that.

But it doesn't have to be, Speed-1 is 5kph which you make 5m in a 6 second round, Speed-2 becomes 10m, and so on. Now the only time you need range bands is between shooter and target. Nothing else need change.

 

[Old_Dr_Skull]

Am I getting this right?

If Pistoleer Frank, with his revolver, shoots at NPC Joe, who has no armor.

He could fire all day at the guy and never put him down.

The revolver does bullet-1.

So the most it could do is 1d6 damage or 6 points.

But, the NPC rule says if you inflict less than 10 points, ignore it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I've read that now. Is it seriously the point that people are having to invent house rules because there isn't a genuinely integrated HtH element in the personal combat chapter!?

Yeah, it's a pretty sad situation, actually.

There is a lot to like about T5. Then, there's stuff like the Unarmed Combat rule....and the discovery Old Dr. Skull makes below.

If Pistoleer Frank, with his revolver, shoots at NPC Joe, who has no armor.

He could fire all day at the guy and never put him down.

The revolver does bullet-1.

So the most it could do is 1d6 damage or 6 points.

But, the NPC rule says if you inflict less than 10 points, ignore it.

Amazing discovery. You're absolutely right.

 

[travlar]

I think the issue is more with the strength of the revolver than with the NPC wounds system, to be honest. Well, both, I guess. But an ordinary pistol doing 1D damage? That's pretty pitiful.

 

[Muzzlehead]

The rules refer to NPC having 10 points of damage, does this apply to beasts also?

I can not figure out how to damage beasts beyond the standard NPC damage rule of 10 damage points.

 

[Nerhesi]

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

You'd have to change all that.

So could that be simply addressed by cutting movement rates by half, or quartering them? Then you wouldn't have this weird issue of 1 minute long combat rounds? Just brainstorming...

 

[Supplement Four]

So could that be simply addressed by cutting movement rates by half, or quartering them? Then you wouldn't have this weird issue of 1 minute long combat rounds? Just brainstorming...

Yes and no.

Yes, if you're just talking about Speed codes and measured distance. See page 295.

No, if you're talking about the abstract movement system used in personal combat. See page 219. That system would be a bear to pair down.

 

[Finn]

So, I've been following this thread for a while, even contributing once or twice ( based off of an older Tasks.pdf file found somewhere. ) Now, I finally have my book, and have started digging in. I have a few thoughts/complaints/ideas. I'm largely in agreement with some of the problems re: t5's abstract combat system. I will likely heavily house rule it, but I do see potential. I'm definitely interested in trying out abstraction. It'll be a tough sell for some of my gaming group, though.

1) One of my bigger issues with the combat system, and one I don't think I've seen mentioned here, is how the attack task difficulty is entirely based on range, rather than based on the range of the weapon. This means that a pistol shot at extreme range is still just as easy of a shot as a rifle at the same range. It, in fact, never gets harder than 2D for a range 2 pistol. ( And please tell me if I've misinterpreted the rules ) This rubs me the wrong way. I will likely try something wonky like having two range categories, one for visual range difficult ( as I call the current system ) and one for the weapon itself. You'd then use the worse of the two difficulties. Unfortunately, this destroys any chance of the abstraction goal, and can get complicated.

2) Re: Tasks. A great deal has been said re: how valuable stats are in the target number for tasks. I'm inclined to agree, although I think I'll give it a try first, to see how it plays. But, I think that there is a potentially easy solution to this, for those that want to downplay stats. You can just treat all stats as a 7 or 8, with modifications to that number based on however you want stats to play. This actually translates fairly well from MT, and possibly CT ( I'm less familiar with that ). In MT, each difficulty level was marked by adding or subtracting 4 to the target number ( routine = 7, difficult = 11, etc ). In T5, each difficulty is marked with +/- 1 d6. That basically equates to +/- 3.5, which is very close. So, if you wished to simulate MT style tasks, you could go with something like 2d < 7+(STR/5)+Brawling.

 

[Supplement Four]

1) One of my bigger issues with the combat system, and one I don't think I've seen mentioned here, is how the attack task difficulty is entirely based on range, rather than based on the range of the weapon. This means that a pistol shot at extreme range is still just as easy of a shot as a rifle at the same range. It, in fact, never gets harder than 2D for a range 2 pistol. ( And please tell me if I've misinterpreted the rules ) This rubs me the wrong way. I will likely try something wonky like having two range categories, one for visual range difficult ( as I call the current system ) and one for the weapon itself. You'd then use the worse of the two difficulties. Unfortunately, this destroys any chance of the abstraction goal, and can get complicated.

As much as I wanted to like T5, it's really just too broken to play. The game is a mess. Yes, there are a couple of good ideas presented in the game--some brillant ones, even. But, as a whole, the game will bring nothing but heartache to the T5 Ref, constantly forcing him to tweak and fix and House Rule broken or ugly parts of the game.

The reason we pay for Core Rulebooks is to have someone else spend a lot of time and energy working out a fun, viable game system to use in our games. Otherwise, we'd just save the money and make up our own games.

T5, plain and simple, is just not delivering.

 

[mechascorpio]

The reason we pay for Core Rulebooks is to have someone else spend a lot of time and energy working out a fun, viable game system to use in our games. Otherwise, we'd just save the money and make up our own games.

Nailed it.

But I do want to say that I really have appreciated the exhaustive look you've done and all the time you've spent detailing the game and its issues. I certainly can't say that I'm at all interested in spending such a huge amount of effort trying to fix what is broken when there are so many other games (including other versions of Traveller) out there. And it sounds like it will just be a nightmare at the game table, with so much detail in the weirdest of places, so many conflicts within the subsystems, and so much left to be interpreted. Who wants to do that in mid-game?? When I backed the KS, I backed a role-playing game, not a broken, poorly-edited "toolkit".

 

[SpaceBadger]

Nailed it.

But I do want to say that I really have appreciated the exhaustive look you've done and all the time you've spent detailing the game and its issues. I certainly can't say that I'm at all interested in spending such a huge amount of effort trying to fix what is broken when there are so many other games (including other versions of Traveller) out there. And it sounds like it will just be a nightmare at the game table, with so much detail in the weirdest of places, so many conflicts within the subsystems, and so much left to be interpreted. Who wants to do that in mid-game?? When I backed the KS, I backed a role-playing game, not a broken, poorly-edited "toolkit".

Can anyone who has a PDF version of T5 answer this? Is it possible to cut/paste large chunks of it to reorganize into your own custom version w useful stuff in logical order where you can find it, or is it one of those locked PDFs that won't let you copy or add notes or anything?

 

[Spartan159]

Can anyone who has a PDF version of T5 answer this? Is it possible to cut/paste large chunks of it to reorganize into your own custom version w useful stuff in logical order where you can find it, or is it one of those locked PDFs that won't let you copy or add notes or anything?

Depends on having a program that can edit PDF's in the first place, can anyone point me to a free/inexpensive editor? I was wanting to take a stab at this very thing.

 

[navanod]

Just tried it with my copy, and it doesn't look like it's locked down at all. Copy and paste your little heart out.

 

[robject]

1) One of my bigger issues with the combat system, and one I don't think I've seen mentioned here, is how the attack task difficulty is entirely based on range, rather than based on the range of the weapon. This means that a pistol shot at extreme range is still just as easy of a shot as a rifle at the same range.

Page 242. Range is the maximum effective range of a weapon. Beyond this range, it is impossible to hit a reasonable target. Some weapons have options which increase this Range.

 

[HG_B]

Depends on having a program that can edit PDF's in the first place, can anyone point me to a free/inexpensive editor? I was wanting to take a stab at this very thing.

If you are gong to cut n paste huge parts, just paste it all into an OpenOffice doc and save as a PDF when done.

 

[Supplement Four]

Page 242. Range is the maximum effective range of a weapon. Beyond this range, it is impossible to hit a reasonable target. Some weapons have options which increase this Range.

Rob, I think what he's saying is this: A Pistol's maximum effective range may be Medium, which would be a 3D difficulty shot.

But, a sniper rifle, with max effective range at Very Long, also throws 3D difficulty for Medium range shots.

His point is: Shouldn't some weapons be easier to use at range than othe weapons? For example, maybe the Sniper Rifle should only be 2D difficulty (and easier shot for the sniper rifle) at Medium range--where Medium range is quite a hard hit for a pistol, so it's a 3D shot.

Another way to presnent the problem would be to say: There is a target at Very Long Range. Why do the Assault Carbine and the Sniper Rifle have the same base chance of hitting the target? Shouldn't the Sniper Rifle have an edge?




A solution would be to base difficulty on the weapon's capability at range--not just the distance to the target.

For example, you could rate a weapon at effective range of Medium. This is a 2D difficulty. Every Range Band closer means -1D to difficulty (to a minimum of 1D), and every Range Band farther aways means +1D difficulty. Maximum Range would be Effective Range plus a number of Range Bands. The weapon may have max effective range of Very Long (which is Medium + 2 bands).



Instead of Diffiulty being expressed solely by Range, Difficulty would be based on the Effective Range and Maximum Range of the weapon. Medium may be the Effective Range for one type of weapon (let's say an assault carbine) and Maxiumum Range for a handgun. But, the difficulty would be different--the carbine having a lower difficulty at its Effective Range, where as the handgun is at it's Maxiumum Range, even though the target is at Medium Range.

Make sense?

 

[HG_B]

Rob, I think what he's saying is this: A Pistol's maximum effective range may be Medium, which would be a 3D difficulty shot.

But, a sniper rifle, with max effective range at Very Long, also throws 3D difficulty for Medium range shots.

How was it even possible to write this rule if the author had even seen different firearms & understood their basic functionality? Boggles the mind.