Who actually wears combat armour?

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Fire control software is the scouts friend. I doubt if the scouts will get involved in much ship to ship combat in peacetime, when they do, the computer operates the turrets. In wartime, naval gunners might be attached, but scout ships are generally weakly armed, and would be used to scout, not fight.

Egil

Sorry, doing mental gymnastics to justify gaping holes in the rule set doesn't cut. Keep trying though.

No, it's just common sense, there is no need for scout careers to be tailored for ship to ship combat, that's what the Navy is for. The gaping gap is in your imagination, not the rules.

Egil

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

The armor table in the core rulebook says combat armor requires Vacc Suit 0 to wear without penalty. For every skill level you are missing you take a -2 DM on all actions.

Note if you use Central Supply Catalog, the Vacc Suit skill requirement was removed from combat armor.

Interesting, the table on page 87 of my copy of the CRB lists "None" under the Required Skill column for all armors except Vacc Suits, HE Vacc suits and Battle Dress.

There has been at least 2 printings of the core rulebook. Apparently, the problem was fixed in one of the printings.

Not the first time that particular amendment/reprinting has caused some misunderstanding in these forums! My edition of the CRB also lacks the "Vacc suit 0" skill for combat armour, though now pencilled in!

Egil

[DickTurpin]

Not the first time that particular amendment/reprinting has caused some misunderstanding in these forums! My edition of the CRB also lacks the "Vacc suit 0" skill for combat armour, though now pencilled in!

Egil

Why would you want to pencil back in an error that has been corrected? Millions of army soldiers that can no longer wear combat armor will be very angry with you!

EDIT: After thinking about it and reviewing the description of combat armor I think that since combat armor can act like a vacc suit, it probably should require Vacc Suit 0 to use. . . I guess we are back to modifying the army skills list to add the Vacc Suit skill. I still like the idea of the Battle Dress skill being able to be used in place of Vacc Suit rather than also modifying the Marine skills list as well.

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Not the first time that particular amendment/reprinting has caused some misunderstanding in these forums! My edition of the CRB also lacks the "Vacc suit 0" skill for combat armour, though now pencilled in!

Egil

Why would you want to pencil back in an error that has been corrected? Millions of army soldiers that can no longer wear combat armor will be very angry with you!

Ha Ha! Point taken, my thinking was that, as combat armour clearly can operate as a vacc suit, it did make sense to require that skill. To get around the point you have raised, I allow a half price combat armour which offers the protection and nbc capability of combat armour, but not the vacc suit capabilities. Such suits are half the price of combat armour, and would be all a soldier in an environment like earth (or, for that matter, most non-vacuum environments) would need. So GI Joe has all the protection he needs in most combat environments, and is not humping unnecessary air bottles and vacuum seals etc around.

Of course, when you do need vacuum capable armour, you call for the (Imperial) Marines, or possibly some elite soldiers (ProtFors are mentioned in "Spinward Marches" background about the Imperial Army). And that, to return to the original question, might well be the group who are most likely to use combat armour. Battle dress is very good but very expensive, combat amour is good, and much cheaper, I imagine some battalions equipped with combat armour rather than battle dress for reasons of economy, or perhaps even a mixture of battle dress and combat armour within the same companies and platoons.

Egil

[dragoner]

I cascade skills so that BD acts as Vacc, but not vise versa; there is poly armor in the CSC that offers CA AV without being a Vacc Suit. The old CT LBB 4 had as a skill "Combat Rifleman" which I liked as I used it to say that the character had been taught all the subjects in the soldier's manual of common tasks, which LBA is covered and would continue to be so, imo.

[F33D]

Of course, when you do need vacuum capable armour, you call for the (Imperial) Marines, or possibly some elite soldiers (ProtFors are mentioned in "Spinward Marches" background about the Imperial Army).
Egil

Not really. Insidious chem weapons are reason enough to have combat armour be vacc rated.

[Jeraa]

Why would you want to pencil back in an error that has been corrected? Millions of army soldiers that can no longer wear combat armor will be very angry with you!

Because its not an error that it requires the Vacc Suit skill. It was actually an error it was removed. In Classic Traveller, combat armor required the Vacc Suit skill. In Traveller20, combat armor proficiency was part of the same feat that granted vacc suit proficiency.

[CosmicGamer]

Marines should have Vacc Suit as a core skill since their reason for existing is to be able to fight on, or be deployed from, starships.

and they probably wouldn't restrict their operations to only worlds with nice atmospheres!

Marines do have Battle Dress skill, which in my opinion is a combination of vacc suit and also all the fancy heads up, sensors, weapons, powered augmentations, and other features battledress has that a vacc suit wouldn't.

I cascade skills so that BD acts as Vacc, but not vise versa

So I think this is reasonable.

I guess the army only goes to worlds where there is no need for a vacc suit, hostile environment suit, or armor with such ability?

Also puzzling is zero-g. I guess that's why those asteroids and other no or low gravity places are so wild and crazy. No army, and no typical ground or support marines can operate there!

Similar issues with Scouts. A courier gets Zero G and vacc suit but explorers and surveyors only set foot places where atmo and gravity are optimum?

[CosmicGamer]

Also puzzling is zero-g. I guess that's why those asteroids and other no or low gravity places are so wild and crazy. No army, and no typical ground or support marines can operate there!

This got me to work on my MTU doc which lists things I do differently than the rules and I added:

My Rules:
- Change the Marines Service Skills Table Tactics (any) to Zero G.
- Change the Marines Advanced Education Table so that the second of the two Medic skills is now Tactics (any).
- Battle Dress skill can be substituted for Vacc Suit skill but Vacc Suit skill can not be used to substitute for the Battle Dress skill; except for vacc suit like features of the Battle Dress.

[F33D]

Similar issues with Scouts. A courier gets Zero G and vacc suit but explorers and surveyors only set foot places where atmo and gravity are optimum?

I noticed that too. Weird indeed.

[Jame Rowe]

Those characters would have to pick up the skills either using the Connections Rule (p. 8 CRB), the Traveller Skill Package (p. 38 CRB), or else take the time to study it during play, I guess. That is one reason I am a big fan of the Connections Rule.

Correct. But, that doesn't justify broken service skill rules.

This is why I let players substitute one level of a list-skill for another non-list skill that makes sense, e.g. letting a Scout character use what would be one level of pilot for one level of gunnery, or gambling or admin, or a Law Enforcement Agent take Vehicle (Grav), Mechanic or Engineer (Electronics) in place of Advocate (I let the Agent's player take Electronics, for example). It's a house rule, sure, but it makes sense to me - especially in my rules I let someone with Electronics pick electronic locks or Mechanic pick mechanical locks.

And I'm sure that there are real-life cops who have learned how to pick locks...

[F33D]

Correct. But, that doesn't justify broken service skill rules.

This is why I let players substitute one level of a list-skill for another non-list skill that makes sense, e.g. letting a Scout character use what would be one level of pilot for one level of gunnery, or gambling or admin, or a Law Enforcement Agent take Vehicle (Grav), Mechanic or Engineer (Electronics) in place of Advocate (I let the Agent's player take Electronics, for example). It's a house rule, sure, but it makes sense to me - especially in my rules I let someone with Electronics pick electronic locks or Mechanic pick mechanical locks.

And I'm sure that there are real-life cops who have learned how to pick locks...[/quote]

That approach works. I just modify the skill list at the get go. Either way, it's an improvement

[Sturn]

Fire control software is the scouts friend. I doubt if the scouts will get involved in much ship to ship combat in peacetime, when they do, the computer operates the turrets. In wartime, naval gunners might be attached, but scout ships are generally weakly armed, and would be used to scout, not fight.

Egil

Sorry, doing mental gymnastics to justify gaping holes in the rule set doesn't cut. Keep trying though.

No, it's just common sense, there is no need for scout careers to be tailored for ship to ship combat, that's what the Navy is for. The gaping gap is in your imagination, not the rules.

Egil

Sorry, but as self-designated arbiter I'm on the side that says the Scouts should be able to learn Gunnery without jumping through hoops. By their nature they are out on the frontier and as pointed out already they can be enlisted to fight during war. If the OTU was "real" then being able to use the turret mounted on your ship would be required in scout basic training. Your argument is kinda like saying Scouts shouldn't be able to learn a skill to operate an Air/Raft since it's pointless, their ships are streamlined, while carrying an Air/Raft in the trunk. Some (many?) Scouts would learn Gunnery. Perhaps not all Scouts will learn it, but it's ridiculous that an essential skill used on the Scout's iconic craft isn't even available during normal character generation.

Old West and musket era "Scouts" weren't tasked to fight battles, only explore the frontier. "Soldiers" were for actually fighting battles. Scouts still all knew how to use a musket or rifle that was an essential part of their kit. Any rules system not allowing such a Scout career access to, "Musket", or "Rifle" skill would be ridiculous. I think the same applies to their far future brethren.

Looks like the Combat Armor skill question has already been answered (you don't need Vacc to use it). I prefer this actually even though past rules systems said otherwise. I suppose a referee could assign a -2 DM for familitarity the first time someone helps you put a set on. Afterwards, I don't think a skill is needed. Permanent penalty for the added bulk? Sure, but no skill should be needed to actually wear it. Monthly I wear perhaps the closest thing available to real world Combat Armor (this). You have to show the new guy how to put it on the very first time, but that's the only training needed.

[F33D]

Old West and musket era "Scouts" weren't tasked to fight battles, only explore the frontier. "Soldiers" were for actually fighting battles. Scouts still all knew how to use a musket or rifle that was an essential part of their kit. Any rules system not allowing such a Scout career access to, "Musket", or "Rifle" skill would be ridiculous. I think the same applies to their far future brethren.

Exactly. By that rational (Only the Navy can fire their ships weapons), Scouts aren't trained in Gun Combat as only the Marines & Army troops fire rifles & Merchants on the frontier aren't trained to use ship weapons when the ship mounts them because that's the Navy's bailiwick.

Beyond ridiculous.

[CosmicGamer]

Scouts should be able to learn Gunnery without jumping through hoops.

What skill should they lose? Pilot, Comms, Sensors, something else? The main issue is that the game has mechanics and the mechanic is that there are 6 skills per table. Logically, realistically, or in theory (since this is a fictional futuristic career), there are a lots more skills than six that someone could learn during a career. But the game mechanic makes it such that the top 6 are listed. Some of this is based on game design such that a group of people playing characters from different careers have different skills complementing each other.

If you really think it is an issue, do like I posted for the marines and Zero G, tweak the tables to your liking. Post, and let us know what skills from what tables you would drop and add.

[Jeraa]

Option 1) Instead of replacing skills on the table, just make another table, with another 6 skill possibilities that a character can roll on. That way you can include all missing skills from a career. Scouts could include Gunnery on their table, Army/Marines could include Vacc Suit, etc. This way you include all (or at least many) of the missing skills, without having to remove any other skill from the list.

Option 2) Instead of rolling randomly for what skill is gained, any time you would gain a skill, the player gets to choose what skill it is. This option would require the GM to step in if a choice doesn't make much sense, however (such as scholar or entertainers choose Battledress skill, for example.)

Option 3) My preference - ignore careers completely, and just use the point buy generation method. Let the player decide what skills his character has, instead of being forced to create a character he may not want to play.

[dragoner]

I've never had players complain about giving them extra skills.

[rust]

What skill should they lose? Pilot, Comms, Sensors, something else?

In my view Communications and Sensors use basically the
same technology (especially when it comes to radio and ra-
dar) and therefore require basically the same technological
knowledge and related skill, so I use only one of these two
skills in my settings. This opens career table slots for some
other skills, which I choose depending on the specific cam-
paign and the player's character concept for this campaign.

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Sorry, but as self-designated arbiter I'm on the side that says the Scouts should be able to learn Gunnery without jumping through hoops. By their nature they are out on the frontier and as pointed out already they can be enlisted to fight during war. If the OTU was "real" then being able to use the turret mounted on your ship would be required in scout basic training. Your argument is kinda like saying Scouts shouldn't be able to learn a skill to operate an Air/Raft since it's pointless, their ships are streamlined, while carrying an Air/Raft in the trunk. Some (many?) Scouts would learn Gunnery. Perhaps not all Scouts will learn it, but it's ridiculous that an essential skill used on the Scout's iconic craft isn't even available during normal character generation.

Old West and musket era "Scouts" weren't tasked to fight battles, only explore the frontier. "Soldiers" were for actually fighting battles. Scouts still all knew how to use a musket or rifle that was an essential part of their kit. Any rules system not allowing such a Scout career access to, "Musket", or "Rifle" skill would be ridiculous. I think the same applies to their far future brethren.

And 20th century scouts were tasked to sing around campfires, your point is based on a irrelevant analogy (I don't recall that Indian scouts were able to handle the naval artillery of the 19th century either). Traveller scouts are not the Kit Carson's of the wild frontier, most are part of a scientific and exploratory organisation, which also runs the galactic post office and assists navigation. There is no need for them to have turret gunnery skills (especially when the ships computer can be loaded with fire control software to operate the turrets), other skills are of much more relevance. If they are going into areas where space combat is a real possibility, then a naval escort will be provided (and lets be honest, the classic type S scout ship, if carrying three lasers, or even one particle beam, is still a very weak combatant, an armed free trader will probably be able to destroy the scout, even if one of the crew has gunner skill).

More interesting, not including flyer or drive skill in the scout career table seems to be more of a limitation. The inclusion of gun combat skill is interesting, it is included, but most scouts will not have more than a level 0. I can see an argument for replacing it with, say, flyer (grav), but have rationalised it as a basic scout requirement, a "just in case".

Egil

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Scouts should be able to learn Gunnery without jumping through hoops.

What skill should they lose? Pilot, Comms, Sensors, something else? The main issue is that the game has mechanics and the mechanic is that there are 6 skills per table. Logically, realistically, or in theory (since this is a fictional futuristic career), there are a lots more skills than six that someone could learn during a career. But the game mechanic makes it such that the top 6 are listed. Some of this is based on game design such that a group of people playing characters from different careers have different skills complementing each other.

Exactly. I think that, as well as remembering how useful the connections rules and the skills packages are in adding those additional skill, it is worth remembering that characters can have more than one career, to create a balanced set of skills, and that the scout service will be adaptable enough to utilise those skills. A recent PC had done two army terms, giving good ground combat skills, and then two scout terms, in which I wrote of the background on the basis that he had been attached to scout teams exploring planets with dangerous fauna and natives, in something of a security role.

Egil