Hmm, could have sworn the ammo types in CSC were knocking points off per die rolled or some such. The more super the AP the more got through.
I skip the whole thing by just upping penetration in CT Striker.
CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
I skip the whole thing by just upping penetration in CT Striker.
Hmm, remembered that in the Loren Wiseman Grognard compilation, he provided his answers to that change CT question. The one he suggested that stuck with me was expanding the original 6 careers in the main books.
COTI supplement provided that, I would tend to ditch the Sailor and Flyer careers as they don't really open up differing play and using Army with a broad interpretation of Vehicle and adding Gunnery will cover them, maybe alternate ranks. Instead, I'd replace with Agent (which would include LE, Spy and Saboteur), Artist/Entertainer, and/or Colonist/Technician with a heaping dose of Jack-of-all-trades.
COTI supplement provided that, I would tend to ditch the Sailor and Flyer careers as they don't really open up differing play and using Army with a broad interpretation of Vehicle and adding Gunnery will cover them, maybe alternate ranks. Instead, I'd replace with Agent (which would include LE, Spy and Saboteur), Artist/Entertainer, and/or Colonist/Technician with a heaping dose of Jack-of-all-trades.
Original_Carl
SOC-12
I was just reading Jack-of-all-Trades again, and I'm pretty sure that subsequent awards of it do nothing for the character that has it -- at least in 1977 I'm pretty sure it didn't. The text of the skill and This seem to me a good approach. Allowing subsequent awards of J-o-T to contribute modifiers to saving throws seems to me to violate the spirit of the Skill system. J-o-T is too good if you allow this, in my view.
So, if I were to change something, it would be to specify that subsequent awards of J-o-T should be re-rolled to get another skill.
So, if I were to change something, it would be to specify that subsequent awards of J-o-T should be re-rolled to get another skill.
I'd rather see it be, "Take a skill you don't yet have at level 1"... but I honestly prefer the MegaTraveller use: It's the number of times you can retry (at full time taken)...
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. Socially, it should depend on your roleplaying acting, consistent with the character's personality, experience and skill.
2. Skills, same as previously stated, minimal penalty.
3. Knowledge, you know who to ask, which questions to ask, and/or where to look.
2. Skills, same as previously stated, minimal penalty.
3. Knowledge, you know who to ask, which questions to ask, and/or where to look.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If you have JoT 3 you get a DM of 3 to the saving throw - note that if you had the necessary skill at 3 you could receive a DM of 3, 6 or in one case 12.
The saving throw system grants, on average, a 2DM per skill level, and remember 'at referee discretion' for JoT.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
That's more luck.
You could take along a lucky rabbit's foot.
You could take along a lucky rabbit's foot.
I’m liking the MgT iteration:
If you don’t have a skill, you suffer DM-3 at tasks requiring said skill (Unskilled). Skill 0 cancels the Unskilled DM.
JoT skill is only available at levels 1 to 3. Each level of JoT skill reduces the Unskilled penalty by 1.
JoT is specifically called out as “not available” when career events, etc, allow for increasing any skill you have. Thus, you have to roll it to increase it.
I mostly disagree in this, as it makes weapons with high stopping power but low penetratin (e.g. a shotgun) quite good against armored targets. using the opposite (pen vs armor) as AHL gives the opposite result, as there shotguns are quite low powered, even against unarmored targets...
Of course, this could be (at least partially) fixed simply by giving armor multiplies, as in T2K 1E...
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
There is an easy fix to this which I have used for years - give weapons a pen rating
low - AV is doubled
standard - AV is normal
high - AV is halved
low - AV is doubled
standard - AV is normal
high - AV is halved
MegaTraveller takes Striker/AHL model, and adds a damage stat... high pen low damage weapons exist, as do low pen but high damage weapons. Shotguns being Pen 1 but damage 4, while most direct penetration single rounds are in pen 1 to pen 4, with damages of 2 or 3, and large caliber hunting rifles Pen 4 damage 4.
If I were to rewrite CT into a new edition based upon experience with MegaTraveller, I'd simply use pen + margin of success compared to AV, and the difference being the "roll" of each damage die (using the CT2E and Bk4 Damage dice).
Note to self: Spoiler isn't working.
it's not?
It's under the vertical ... menu "More Options"
Don't know if the bbcode works.
Yup it does.
This is from the menu
Wow -- that just obliterated it.
Stick with the BBCode I guess.
Yeah, I did mine manually. Didn't know
Edit:
OH! There's a "Toggle BBCode" button! //happy dance//
I have stuck with AHL, as there isn’t some inflation of the weapon stats. And I rejiggered the pen/damage table.
that is mostly what I did. The damage roll is 1d6+effect, I like a bit of randomness in damage rolls.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Can you point me toward this discussion? Or was it something that happened in person?
Original_Carl
SOC-12
Typing like I had a head injury there! Not sure what happened to the middle text, but away it went!
I like the retries idea per Megatraveller and Aramis. I'm still opposed to giving a JoT holder any DMs on their saving throws. In my own experiences it's such an abused skill in that regard. JoT-3 (granted, a low-probability of that occurring) is very much like free skill-1 in everything. I think that it give you chance to do or know anything is enough and additional modifiers to those rolls is excessive. It cheapens the other skills, I think.
Reading the text (again! what is it with this board?!) I'm struck by just how little is written about JoT and how to use it. It's all referee discretion! I miss the good old days when we didn't have to have a rule for everything.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
As a result of my most recent musings on crew requirements for starships (LBB2.81 p11, 16 and 23) in my Spinward Flex Courier thread (link provided to the specific post) ... I would make the following changes to crew requirements.
Making these 2 changes would substantially remove the "200 tons and under" loophole for reduced crew requirements.
The change to Navigator is intended to reflect any course beyond orbiting a single world or moon, so courses to orbit other objects require a navigator (including jumps to other star systems).
The change to Engineer is to account for ships under 200 tons with drive sections that exceed 35 tons displacement in total size which really ought to have engineers assigned to them but which the legacy Rules As Written do not account for (because you basically couldn't do it under LBB2 as written in a 100 ton hull).
Update to ...
Update to ...
Making these 2 changes would substantially remove the "200 tons and under" loophole for reduced crew requirements.
The change to Navigator is intended to reflect any course beyond orbiting a single world or moon, so courses to orbit other objects require a navigator (including jumps to other star systems).
The change to Engineer is to account for ships under 200 tons with drive sections that exceed 35 tons displacement in total size which really ought to have engineers assigned to them but which the legacy Rules As Written do not account for (because you basically couldn't do it under LBB2 as written in a 100 ton hull).
I'd require Navigation skill, but for ships where it's not a mandatory crew slot (200Td or smaller) the -1 skill level penalty for dual-role crew wouldn't apply. CT doesn't have any explicit game mechanics involving the Navigator's input into starship operation so it wouldn't make much difference anyhow.
Similar threads
MT Only:
Advantage in Tasks