Traveller Feats

[DrSkull]

I'm just wondering what might be some Traveller-specific Feats we might see.

One guess would be Jack-of-All-Trades. This seems to me to be perfect as a feat rather than a skill. Taking it would let you use any "trained only" skill applying your ability mod.

"Battledress" sounds like a feat to me too, although it might work as a skill (or maybe it is combined with a skill, like WIlderness Lore and Track are in D&D 3)

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
I'm just wondering what might be some Traveller-specific Feats we might see.

One guess would be Jack-of-All-Trades. This seems to me to be perfect as a feat rather than a skill. Taking it would let you use any "trained only" skill applying your ability mod.

"Battledress" sounds like a feat to me too, although it might work as a skill (or maybe it is combined with a skill, like WIlderness Lore and Track are in D&D 3)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One would hope that, like all other d20 armors, it would be a feat to wear it without penalty. But I can see a "Suit Equipment" skill for more that just BD... Hey, is the dev team listening?

------------------
-aramis
========================================
Smith & Wesson:
The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[Nurd_boy]

Remember, the feat of 'armor' in d20 isn't just putting it on (any yutz can do that). it's being able to move, run, jump, fight with that awkward wieght.

Personal experience (10 years SCA, 8 as a 'heavy' fighter)even the best fitting armor isn't a cotton shirt.

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nurd_boy:
Remember, the feat of 'armor' in d20 isn't just putting it on (any yutz can do that). it's being able to move, run, jump, fight with that awkward wieght.

Personal experience (10 years SCA, 8 as a 'heavy' fighter)even the best fitting armor isn't a cotton shirt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And knowing how and when your visibility is comprimised. And knowing just how far your armor lets you bend. There are things you can't do in maximillian style legs (with the integral boot-covering lames) that you can in lesser plate armors: rotate commfortably on one foot. Even the US Army's PASGT helmet restricts head mobility and visibility. A great helm makes your field of view nigh on nil.

I, too, have trained as Heavy, but I've also done kendo/kenjitsu, and cut and thrust. Each different armor is more than movement restrictions; D&D3e doesn't really address this element, but T20 should, IMHO.

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[Phil]

I think you're all making the point that armor use should be covered with feats. Look at the number of things that go into effectively using armor. Its more than just gaining a skill, its a number of things that all go together to make one a "proficient" user of the armor. Also remember Aramis, that medieval armor does somewhat fit into the light, medium, and heavy categories as far as use (at least in my experience in SCA style combat). Big difference between Viking leathers, Crusader chain mail, and Milanese Plate, but relatively little difference between say, chain, lamellar, and coat of plates. (I mostly fight in Crusades era gear so I've tried all three of these.) But I do agree that when you get into high tech armors there is a much greater division between effective use of armor types, though the basics would still focus on mobility and vision. Perhaps the unpowered types should be in general categories and the powered armors should be individual feats, a kind of "exotic armor" where each type requires specific training. To use a real world example; an F-14 pilot would probably be able to operate an F-16 on the first try, but would he really be proficient with its use in combat, where knowing the capabilities of your equipment are the difference between life and death? I don't think so.

 

[aramis]

I feel that some armors, like Battledress should have a skill for the extras, and should be a separate feat from "Heavy Armors" which would include Combat. I also feel there should be a PERCEPTION penalty, something which is not addressed at all in d20 yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phil:
I think you're all making the point that armor use should be covered with feats. Look at the number of things that go into effectively using armor. Its more than just gaining a skill, its a number of things that all go together to make one a "proficient" user of the armor. Also remember Aramis, that medieval armor does somewhat fit into the light, medium, and heavy categories as far as use (at least in my experience in SCA style combat). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[Takei]

My initial feeling about armour feats is that they should be broken down into:
1/ Soft (cloth, CES)
2/ Hard (combat)
3/ Battledress

The Battledress feat should cover use of any onboard sensors and the enhanced strength. This tends to assume a more CT view of things. Sensor skill would give you a bonus to their use, but Battledress feat at least lets you use them.

Paul Bendall

 

[Takei]

I forgot, doesn't SW have the feat Starship Dodge? Bad idea. Operate Starship as a feat is OK, but flying the things should be covered by the skill.

Paul Bendall

 

[GypsyComet]

yes, but in SW ships CAN dodge. Given that I like Fighters, and canon supports them, I don't think a StarFighter Dodge would be asking too much in T20...

 

[Phil]

I agree gypsy, but STARFIGHTER is the operative word. Above a certain size, a ship just can't maneuver quickly enough to "dodge."

I agree with Dr. Skull, the most obvious feat is Jack of All Trades. I think this should be a feat rather than a skill because of a bad experience with a character with JOT-6. At that level you just don't need many other skills. If its a Feat, the bonus is stated, and you could even allow it to be taken up to, say twice. That way you avoid skill gods who rely almost solely on JOT.

 

[GypsyComet]

What about weapons?

Traveller has always spread weapons expertise pretty thin, but assumed that a PC could muddle through. Making the various categories of weapon into Feats makes weapons proficiency mighty dear if broken up too much. Make too few categories and you cheapen the value of a military background. I'm inclined to start with a simple scale:

weapons that go "thump"
weapons that go "clang"
weapons that go "bang"
weapons that go "BOOM!"
weapons that go "beep"

and let all PCs (with a few exceptions, like the Virushi) start with one of the first three. Note that I'm not convinced that the last one should be a feat. Starship weapons strike me as skills, not feats...

 

[Cleon the Mad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GypsyComet:
What about weapons?

Traveller has always spread weapons expertise pretty thin, but assumed that a PC could muddle through. Making the various categories of weapon into Feats makes weapons proficiency mighty dear if broken up too much. Make too few categories and you cheapen the value of a military background. I'm inclined to start with a simple scale:

weapons that go "thump"
weapons that go "clang"
weapons that go "bang"
weapons that go "BOOM!"
weapons that go "beep"

and let all PCs (with a few exceptions, like the Virushi) start with one of the first three. Note that I'm not convinced that the last one should be a feat. Starship weapons strike me as skills, not feats...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay,maybe I'm missing a post before this, but if I may ask, what do you consider to be each category...for instance, gunpowder based small arms I assume are "things that go bang", and you indicate that "things that go beep" are starship weapons, but where would you put a PGMP or a TL:13 X-ray laser rifle, for instance? (And to nitpick, a gauss rifle probably makes a tiny zap noise from the electromagnets discharging as they send the round down the barrel, no bang, no gunpowder to go bang, but I'm sure it's in that category also...).

Otherwise...what does each category represent? ::looks around...confused::

(Remember, I'm a despotic emperor, I have people go beep, boom and bang around me, I never learned how to do that on my own.

)




------------------
It is not I who am crazy, it's I who am mad!

 

[GypsyComet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GypsyComet:

weapons that go "thump"
weapons that go "clang"
weapons that go "bang"
weapons that go "BOOM!"
weapons that go "beep"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The scale is intended to be:

Unarmed
Melee weapons
handheld firearms
artillery (aka "crew-served weapons")
starship weapons

Obviously Traveller has always divided finer than this, and as such this was just the first step. A *scale* division if you will, or a measure of how personal the weapon is. Under such a division the fusion, plasma, and gauss guns fit into "Bang" while grenade launchers and mortars start the bottom of the "BOOM" group. It's a bit hard to classify some of the weapons (VRF Gauss and machine guns) but, like I said, it's a start...

 

[CeltiBear]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cleon the Mad:
a gauss rifle probably makes a tiny zap noise from the electromagnets discharging as they send the round down the barrel, no bang, no gunpowder to go bang, but I'm sure it's in that category also...


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it's true that a gauss rifle wouldn't bang the way a powder-weapon does, the slug/bullet/whatever would probably break the sound barrier. A sonic boom on that scale would sound like, well, "bang."

------------------
Sean O'Leary - Irial Féasruadh ó hIarnáin
Sol3, NorAm Quad

 

[DaddyDragon]

It is possible, under the right conditions for an object to exceed the speed of sound, without generating a sonic boom (ie. the bang you are referring to). Somewhere in the books, it is canon that the Guass Pistol/Rifle family are effectively silent. And this was backed up with an article in Challenge Magazine (if memory serves). I have just finished moving and haven't gotten nearly as much unpacking done as I should, but I will see if I can get documented source material for this from the previous rulesets.

Regards,
Larry



------------------
"They'd have labelled it an accidental shooting. If he hadn't changed the magazine. Twice."

 

[Cleon the Mad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GypsyComet:
The scale is intended to be:

Unarmed
Melee weapons
handheld firearms
artillery (aka "crew-served weapons")
starship weapons

Obviously Traveller has always divided finer than this, and as such this was just the first step. A *scale* division if you will, or a measure of how personal the weapon is. Under such a division the fusion, plasma, and gauss guns fit into "Bang" while grenade launchers and mortars start the bottom of the "BOOM" group. It's a bit hard to classify some of the weapons (VRF Gauss and machine guns) but, like I said, it's a start...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, this explains a lot, thank you.

Oh, for machine guns/VRF gauss guns, maybe something like...

Things that go rat-tat-tat?

I'd also suggest a small "boom" for such things like grenade launchers, LAW rockets, etc, and a large BOOM for crew serviced artillery, Maybe I'm still in that nitpick mood but I guess I see those as two different FEATS/skills/However they will do it when the dust is settled.

But remember, I'm just a despotic emperor, I'm only suggesting such...heh-heh...

------------------
It is not I who am crazy, it's I who am mad!

 

[Cleon the Mad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaddyDragon:
It is possible, under the right conditions for an object to exceed the speed of sound, without generating a sonic boom (ie. the bang you are referring to). Somewhere in the books, it is canon that the Guass Pistol/Rifle family are effectively silent. And this was backed up with an article in Challenge Magazine (if memory serves). I have just finished moving and haven't gotten nearly as much unpacking done as I should, but I will see if I can get documented source material for this from the previous rulesets.

Regards,
Larry

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd also think that one would have to be close to the round as it sped by you, i.e. a "near miss", perhaps even right by one's head, for such a sonic boom to be heard, even if a gauss rifle/pistol would make such, which it might not according to you post.

(Plus, many real world gunpowder based firearms shoot projectiles at faster then the speed of sound, mind you there is that annoying "bang" to mask the sonic boom if any, but still I'd think that one might occasionally hear such...but at this point I'm rambling, and I know it)



------------------
It is not I who am crazy, it's I who am mad!

 

[TimAllan]

The only way for an object to travel through an atmosphere and not propigate a sonic boom perpendicular to its direction of travel is, theoretically, for the object to have a special anular shape that would completely contain the boom within its confines, but even this would only reduce it. A loud sound does not take very much energy to produce.
If, for instance, a bullet is fired from an M16 and the expansion noise from its propellant explosion is suppressed, there will still be a loud cracking shockwave produced by the bullets movement through the air, though it is very difficult to determin where the boom came fron as the loudest and first sound heard is the closest approach to the observer and the approach and recession waves arrive at the same time.
The refference in challenge is in C W Hess's 2300 article describing the weapons of the US Marrine Corps, describing in particular the operation of the special operations version of the M5 gauss rifle, the comment about it being silent is in error if the weapon fires a super sonic round. A gauss rifle fletchette is after all just a long thin bullet.

 

[Cleon the Mad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TimAllan:
The only way for an object to travel through an atmosphere and not propigate a sonic boom perpendicular to its direction of travel is, theoretically, for the object to have a special anular shape that would completely contain the boom within its confines, but even this would only reduce it. A loud sound does not take very much energy to produce.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is in part a question, in part a statement, but would said sonic boom from said gauss round be all that loud? Perhaps yes, it could be heard, but would it be enough to "zone in" on where the shot came from, or would it simply be not much more then let's say the crack of a whip?

(Anyone out there build their own mass driver yet?

)

Just a random question, probably getting off topic of the whole "feats" issue in T20.

Cleon the IV, the "sane" one.



------------------
It is not I who am crazy, it's I who am mad!

 

[Blue Ghost]

Snapping one's fingers is a mini-sonic boom. A slug-thrower that hurles bullets and/or needles faster than the speed of sound is going to make noise. The size would have to be calculated based on the projectile's size.

[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 06 July 2001).]