T5 Personal Combat System Review, Opinion, and Problems

[cuTTer]

True. But my interpretation of Snub is a cut down barrel which in the real world has no effect on the damage so much as the range. Still if you don't like Snubs doing more damage or as i think may have happened trough a typo ignore the increase in damage and reduce the range like the Body pistol. I don't reduce the damage of a body pistol anyway, as long as its a slugthrower since all the barrel length does is increase accuracy (Range). If the pistol is an energy weapon though, then i see no reason why the damage shouldn't be reduced for a body pistol since the laser is all about the length of barrel.

I think you're missing my point, though I realise I sound like a patronising blankety-blank, for saying so. Apologies in advance

I know how to "fix" it (and I put fix in little metaphorical air-quotes there because even I know when I say fix I mean 'bend it to my will and world view').

What I'm disappointed by is my feeling of a need to fix it. Part of that is my slight OCD tendency <cough> but a big part of it is the feeling that things don't quite line up as they should.

Small gun X has been given one treatment, small gun Y has been given another, quite different, treatment. It's not logical (captain) and it hurts my head.

Somewhere, someone who has never played Traveller is going to buy T5, it's going to be their introduction to the Third Imperium and the OTU, without the context of many of our beloved Traveller-isms.

As a first-contact situation, it seems quite poor.

I want to like T5 more than I do like it.

I feel a bit dirty, and not in a good way.

 

[Finn]

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.

Honestly, I'm such a tinkerer that I have yet to find a game system that 100% matches what I want. So far, I'm loving reading through T5.. but I always assumed I'd have to chop things out, patch in rules from other versions, or just make stuff up myself. I really enjoy doing that stuff. In another life, if I had a bit more drive and a lot more talent at writing, I'd have been a game designer.

I have ( or at least I am forming ) a very specific traveller campaign in mind. I will work at it from the campaign angle, and then tie in rules that work the way I want the campaign to work. So far, there is a lot to like in T5, imo. I'm just trying to identify the parts that I need to replace.

So, given that it was never my intent to use the game in its entirety, I am somewhat unqualified to render a verdict one way or the other. ( particularly since I'm still working my way through the book. ) I will, however, attempt to keep inviting opinions on how to fix specific problems, as well as provide possible ideas myself.

 

[Finn]

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?

Yes, that is exactly the problem I was attempting to describe. You described it a bit more clearly, however.

I like the Effective Range idea. I suppose one could implement a range version of the This is Hard! rule. You could declare that Effective Range is always 1 range band less than Maximum Range. If you are out of Effective Range, the difficulty increases by one. It's simple and still allows the abstaction that is the Range Bands. ( my other solution involved effectively creating different range bands per each weapon with a certain maximum range.. ugh )

 

[HG_B]

True. But my interpretation of Snub is a cut down barrel which in the real world has no effect on the damage so much as the range.

An inch in barrel length can have a decent effect on velocity and thus, kinetic energy. Especially at close ranges.

 

[robject]

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 other 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.

Ah, I understand what's he's asking. The task roll could change based on the weapon's design as well as its range. In effect, certain descriptors change a weapon's Ease Of Use (p. 191).

I notice that there's a "Close Quarters" EOU mod for weapons on page 254. Something like that, perhaps, for "FQ" - Far Quarters (for lack of a better term), or "Accuracy"?

 

[rancke]

True. But my interpretation of Snub is a cut down barrel which in the real world has no effect on the damage so much as the range.

IIRC in Traveller 'snub' refers to the propulsion. It gets a massive damage boost, but only at short range and it is almost useless at medium range. It can be used aboard a ship with little chance of punching through the hull. However, checking with TTB doesn't show any snub weapons at all, so I could be misremembering.



Hans

 

[cuTTer]

IIRC in Traveller 'snub' refers to the propulsion. It gets a massive damage boost, but only at short range and it is almost useless at medium range. It can be used aboard a ship with little chance of punching through the hull. However, checking with TTB doesn't show any snub weapons at all, so I could be misremembering.



Hans

Pretty close Hans, from Book 4,

"The snub pistol is a low velocity revolver designed for use on shipboard and in a zero-G environment. It fires 10mm, 7 gram bullets at velocities of 100 to 150 meters per second. No magazine is used, six individual cartridges being inserted into the revolver separately. Standard rounds include a tranquilizer round, gas round, high explosive round, and a high explosive shaped charge round to defeat personal armor. The snub pistol is a standard shipboard security weapon generally loaded with five tranq rounds and one gas round."

And in that context I know why a snub pistol might get a +1 to damage, if it's loaded with HE rounds. But compare that with T5s explanation,

"Snub. The weapon is specifically designed to be easy to carry and operate, but at a cost in range and effect."

The T5 description doesn't reflect the T5 numbers, which are (ironically?) closer to CTs description, albeit for only one of the three ammo types usually associated with a snub pistol.

In T5 Snub almost seems to be shorthand for 'sawn-off'. It's not limited to just this very specific revolver, it can and has been applied to rifles too (p.238) and there is no explanation inside the T5 rulebook as to why it does extra damage.

It irks me, it irks me hard.

 

[Supplement Four]

I like the Effective Range idea.

T4's weapons are rated for Effective Range. Maximum Range is two range bands farther than Effective Range (with a penalty).

In this sense, T4's weapons do what you want. A weapon firing at Maxium Range could be the same range where a weapon is firing at Effective range. Therefore, both weapons could be firing at the same range but have different difficulty.

 

[nixxon]

re:TPCS and STAMP

A little late to the discussion here, but I feel I have to make some remarks regarding the TPCS and STAMP, previously discussed and as I see it, missing a point or two.

First things first thou, this tread has been a good read, with a lot of clarifications and some more questions raised.

For me the TPCS and STAMP can handle all fighting, close combat as well as ranged combat, what it needs is more examples to provide guidance and the importance of accepting them as rules of abstraction for gaming, as perhaps more parts of the rules needs.

Over all I have to say that with a few more clarifications the TPCS should work for almost all personal combat situations I think, but over to:

STAMP, how to read it, my way.

Here it is important to read that this sequence is related to the ATTACKER.
The attacker does all the 4(5) steps when it is his turn during the combat round.

S > Check situation. Checks what weapon to use, environment of combat situation, health and wound status (!) comrades, possible targets etc. p. 217

T > Identifies target. Also defines what the range is, target size and any target modifiers to use. p. 217

A > Attack! Done via The Fight Task, also note that it handles blades and unarmed fighting according to the table on p. 218

M > Movement. Any movement related actions taken by the ATTACKER during his turn. Includes all non-shooting and fighting actions as I read it.

P > Penetration. If the attack succeeded, penetration (overwhelming) is figured out, and resulting wounding, injury or damage as a final result.


Earlier the common conclusion seemed to be that a target might move after the attack was done and then perhaps move away, to cover, etc, before the result of the attack was resolved, but as you see in the rules, STAMP is all about the sequence for the current "active" (N)PC's turn during the round.

How does this all work together? Well, great, I think.
The sequence is very smooth if you ask me, check the situation, pick a target, make the attack, move if willing/possible and then we'll see what the result of the attack was if successful during the attack phase.
Add the other combat rules, initiative, going first, deliberate/hasty tasks, injuries and wounds and you end up with a very nice set of combat rules

Of course there is a few gaps that needs explanations and some of the rules need expanding for it all to get "perfect".
For example, the question about how do Marc think regarding magazine size and combat?
What about a few examples of close combat using TPCS, I notice on p. 218 that there is both a blade and unarmed characteristics+skill lines. How should one think regarding the other parts of the TPCS in close combat, speed and moods?

I also have some thoughts regarding movement and range bands, I'll get back on that subject.

-= NixxoN =-

_____________________________________________
Baron Jean Nicholas af Schwede, Lanth, Spinward Marches
Baron if the Imperial Core, Ances, Core

 

[cuTTer]

A little late to the discussion here, but I feel I have to make some remarks regarding the TPCS and STAMP, previously discussed and as I see it, missing a point or two.

First things first thou, this tread has been a good read, with a lot of clarifications and some more questions raised.

For me the TPCS and STAMP can handle all fighting, close combat as well as ranged combat, what it needs is more examples to provide guidance and the importance of accepting them as rules of abstraction for gaming, as perhaps more parts of the rules needs.

Over all I have to say that with a few more clarifications the TPCS should work for almost all personal combat situations I think, but over to:

STAMP, how to read it, my way.

Here it is important to read that this sequence is related to the ATTACKER.
The attacker does all the 4(5) steps when it is his turn during the combat round.

S > Check situation. Checks what weapon to use, environment of combat situation, health and wound status (!) comrades, possible targets etc. p. 217

T > Identifies target. Also defines what the range is, target size and any target modifiers to use. p. 217

A > Attack! Done via The Fight Task, also note that it handles blades and unarmed fighting according to the table on p. 218

M > Movement. Any movement related actions taken by the ATTACKER during his turn. Includes all non-shooting and fighting actions as I read it.

P > Penetration. If the attack succeeded, penetration (overwhelming) is figured out, and resulting wounding, injury or damage as a final result.


Earlier the common conclusion seemed to be that a target might move after the attack was done and then perhaps move away, to cover, etc, before the result of the attack was resolved, but as you see in the rules, STAMP is all about the sequence for the current "active" (N)PC's turn during the round.

How does this all work together? Well, great, I think.
The sequence is very smooth if you ask me, check the situation, pick a target, make the attack, move if willing/possible and then we'll see what the result of the attack was if successful during the attack phase.
Add the other combat rules, initiative, going first, deliberate/hasty tasks, injuries and wounds and you end up with a very nice set of combat rules

Of course there is a few gaps that needs explanations and some of the rules need expanding for it all to get "perfect".
For example, the question about how do Marc think regarding magazine size and combat?
What about a few examples of close combat using TPCS, I notice on p. 218 that there is both a blade and unarmed characteristics+skill lines. How should one think regarding the other parts of the TPCS in close combat, speed and moods?

I also have some thoughts regarding movement and range bands, I'll get back on that subject.

-= NixxoN =-

_____________________________________________
Baron Jean Nicholas af Schwede, Lanth, Spinward Marches
Baron if the Imperial Core, Ances, Core

I glanced over what you wrote Nix then figuratively flicked my pdf over to the relevant section, mostly pages 217-218. Wind back another page, first paragraph under the table, entitled Which Side Goes First?

"STAMP governs the actions of each participant in combat. Each of the Phases is completed by everyone involved before play can proceed to the next Phase. It helps for the Referee (or someone in charge) to call out “End Of <Phase Name> Phase!” when every one is done."

Each phase is completed by EVERYONE before play can proceed to the next phase.

What you had said makes pretty good sense, and I could go with it if it wasn't for this contradiction. Even the title of the paragraph is unhelpful, the paragraph has nothing to do with initiative order as the title suggests, but rather how the phases of a round operate.

And, come to think of it, it's not even Who Goes First? but Which SIDE Goes First? implying it might even work like a wargame, with one whole force going first, then an opposing force going next.

I want to understand how it supposed to work, if anyone can shed some light on it, I'd be more than happy to listen.

(Apologies for the CAPS, I don't know how to do bold in these things, shocking, I know...)

 

[David Johansen]

My understanding is that all combat is similtaneous. STAMP is just the order in which things are resolved for the sake of sanity. So getting shot doesn't prevent movement because they actually happen at the same time.

The sole exception is that guy who leaps out of cover and starts shooting wildly because he wants to shoot first.

I've so many different versions I'm not sure whether it says in the current version or not. (waiting for a book to fall...)

 

[nixxon]

I glanced over what you wrote Nix then figuratively flicked my pdf over to the relevant section, mostly pages 217-218. Wind back another page, first paragraph under the table, entitled Which Side Goes First?

"STAMP governs the actions of each participant in combat. Each of the Phases is completed by everyone involved before play can proceed to the next Phase. It helps for the Referee (or someone in charge) to call out “End Of <Phase Name> Phase!” when every one is done."

Each phase is completed by EVERYONE before play can proceed to the next phase.

What you had said makes pretty good sense, and I could go with it if it wasn't for this contradiction. Even the title of the paragraph is unhelpful, the paragraph has nothing to do with initiative order as the title suggests, but rather how the phases of a round operate.

And, come to think of it, it's not even Who Goes First? but Which SIDE Goes First? implying it might even work like a wargame, with one whole force going first, then an opposing force going next.

I want to understand how it supposed to work, if anyone can shed some light on it, I'd be more than happy to listen.

(Apologies for the CAPS, I don't know how to do bold in these things, shocking, I know...)

Hmm I thougt I had it all figured out, but your page reference brought me back to the book again

The p. 216 and 215 does support your point clearly, but the last words of the first sentence, right hand side of p. 215 says "... determing the order in which characters make their attacks in any particular round of combat.

Does that mean that a character/group that have the initiative go first in all the STAMP phases in a round of combat?

I also got the wargames vibe from the sequence, but my interpretation was that one character (or group) does all the steps.. until rereading the summary pages again..

 

[robject]

[...] I also got the wargames vibe from the [combat] sequence [...]

Not surprising. A reasonable inference.

I occasionally pick up on side conversations that others may not have access to, so to me, I get the convention vibe from combat. I cannot be sure, but I believe that its abstraction is geared for speed, in order that the system may be played in a shorter period of time, for convention play.

Disclaimer: I haven't ever been to a 'con, but I know someone who has been to many, and from what he says, that seems to be one why of T5 combat.

 

[BytePro]

Oh, sure, it's MEEEE that's wrong and not the rule book that is full of broken and ugly rules!!!!!:devil:

Well, I've seen the unpacking video - the rules (book) don't look ugly!

Noting a tendency to read part of things and post conclusions...

This is why I reasoned that the Hits (V1) column were solid numbers, not dice. Otherwise, if you are correct, why even have the Hits (V1) column when it duplicates information already on the chart?

... H1, H2 and H3 are the types of damage from the V2 system, so Bullet, Bang, Blast, Frag etc. The D1, D2 and D3 are the amount of dice damage done by those same types of Effect. The V1 column is the damage if you are only using the CT style damage system in dice. ...

Licheking provided better reasoning.

So, during a combat, hit location and severity isn't figured.
...
After a combat, when medical treatment is applied, roll on a table for Hit Location (I guess the system assumes a single hit) and check for wound severity. Severity is only used for the Medical tasks.

Suspect reasoning here is solely on a task example. Makes no sense to be done after combat - how would you track that and how would that work with the D1..D3 stuff given one would have already rolled each hit? Doesn't the wording for Penetration from STAMP refer to hit location and severity? Sounds like such is an option during combat.

As to the whole Movement before Penetration thing - abstractly it doesn't matter much as long as it is consistent. Practically, in play, I agree it sounds really bad, especially if each Phase of STAMP is performed by everyone before moving to the next Phase. Unless Penetration depends on Range, it doesn't seem to make much sense, except to maintain a cute acronym.


My take so far - the T5 combat rules could be pretty elegant and complete, but are poorly edited and too terse without examples. TBH, this is what I expected .. and why I did not go for the first printing.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, I've seen the unpacking video - the rules (book) don't look ugly!

Noting a tendency to read part of things and post conclusions...

Try reading the book first. You're making claims as to my interpretation of the rules without having read the rules yourself.

It's kinda anoying.

Licheking provided better reasoning.

I don't think he's correct. The two damage systems are the quick system for the NPC and the standard CT system. That's it. There's no phantom missing system.

The rules tend to make people think that there are because of the V0/V1/V2 indicators.

I'll be very surprised to see that I'm wrong about this if ever Marc posts an example.

Suspect reasoning here is solely on a task example. Makes no sense to be done after combat...

Why not? That's the way it is done in MegaTraveller.

Doesn't the wording for Penetration from STAMP refer to hit location and severity? Sounds like such is an option during combat.

Yes. You roll the weapon's damage, check penetration, and then apply damage dice to a character's stats in the fashion of CT.

You do not roll hit location or figure wound severity at this point. You do that after the combat is over, when you're trying to heal your character.

TBH, this is what I expected .. and why I did not go for the first printing.

Color me surprised if there is a second printing.

 

[BytePro]

Even without the book, my take is that your interpretations may be wrong, and hence one very good reason why you are posting about these issues - sorry if that annoys you.

Both systems apply damage dice values to stats (ala CT) - after accounting for armor.

Sounds like the extra damage detail is by nature (EMP/bang/blast/etc) which would seem relevant to armor - something you seem to be ignoring. Further, I got the impression from other threads that damage such as that which affects the senses - hearing/blindness - may have non-stat based effects during combat (deaf for x rounds, etc.).

So, the second system offers different damage dice to apply for getting through/ignoring armor of varying capabilities. Further, from other threads, the hit system may apply to functional parts of armor (power supply, sensors, etc) and could also partially or not at all apply to human stats (EMP?).

From various posts, and logically, these things being just 'post' combat for medical treatment purposes doesn't seem likely.

 

[Supplement Four]

Does that mean that a character/group that have the initiative go first in all the STAMP phases in a round of combat?

Each phase of STAMP is completed before moving on to the next.

Even without the book, my take is that your interpretations may be wrong, and hence one very good reason why you are posting about these issues - sorry if that annoys you.

The annoyance comes from your criticism when you really don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read the book or the issue about which you are being critical.

Sounds like the extra damage detail is by nature (EMP/bang/blast/etc) which would seem relevant to armor - something you seem to be ignoring.

No, as I said, you would apply damage in the Penetration phase.

What you don't do until after combat is figure severity and wound location.

If this is what you think I've been saying, then go back and re-read my posts as you've misread them.

 

[BytePro]

No, as I said, you would apply damage in the Penetration phase.

Not at all surprised you misunderstood what was posted. <shrug>

 

[Supplement Four]

Not at all surprised you misunderstood what was posted. <shrug>

You might want to start reading a little closer yourself before you criticize. Both my posts, the object of your criticism, and the T5 rules.

<shrug>

 

[SpaceBadger]

But look at the text on p.246 for Snub.

"Snub The weapon is specifically designed to be easy to carry and operate, but at a cost in range and effect."

*snip*

While we're here let's contrast Snub with Body, the text for which is also on p.246.

"Body (applies only to Pistols and Revolvers). The Pistol or Revolver is light-weight and ergonomically designed."

Both of these definitions from T5 seem to lose the essence of the Snub Pistol and Body Pistol from CT.

The essence of a Snub Pistol isn't that it is "easy to carry and operate" but that it is designed for shipboard use with low velocity rounds to minimize recoil and especially to minimize damage to the interior of the ship.

The essence of a Body Pistol isn't that it is "light-weight and ergonomically designed" but that it is optimized for concealment and made of materials that are hard to detect w equal-TL security systems.

Why the changes, if anyone knows?