Level 0 specialities

[FentonGib]

Heyas

I'm a little confuzzled because it normally says that when you get a skill at level 1 you get all the specialities at 0 (e.g. someone with Engineer [M-Drive] 1 would have 0 in J-Drive too). That's fair enough.

But some skills like Trade specify that all level 0s must be taken individually (which I don't get if it says that level 0 means only the most basic understanding of employment... so that would be per specialisation?).

Anyhow my question is this... some careers (like Entertainer) give you Art a few times. And some sources say Language (any) 0. So which skills then do you get all at 0 and which don't?

Specifically: Art, Language, Trade. I feel all of these should have level 0 as a seperate specialty without a common "basic", and level 0 reflecting trained competence in it (e.g. a high school award in art [painting] or basic fluency in Vargr).

Also, do you lot keep Medic as the single skill it is in the core book, or do you use the specializations version in Compendium 1? I like the idea of medical specialties (since my sister is a doctor I know how complex a field it is) but fear that forcing that on my players (one is the group's doctor) would just end up weakening his abilility/role.

Thanx!

 

[Matian]

The way heard it hilariously explained by one of my players is, "Level zero means you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

Medic is, I think, the best way to explain the way a 0 skill works. It means you've got full first aid certification, and maybe some EMT training, but no formal medical knowledge. Basically, you have the skills to make someone survive until they get to someone more qualified. You're only going to attempt, say, brain surgery, if the person will most likely die without intervention NOW.

Trade skills make sense, because a 0 is an apprentice in a trade (1 would be journeyman, etc). Being skilled as a vet tech doesn't mean you can fix plumbing.

Art I took as a "Liberal art" sense. If you're familiar with theatre, you're also familiar with film, and presumably literature. The 0 means you've taken basic courses in Art, with higher numbers representing specialized fields. (I use the same rule for Physical, Life, etc sciences.)

Expanding Medic increases flavour, but cuts down on effectiveness. I ended up collapsing Engineer into one skill because it became too much for the engineer on my crew to handle, so there's my anecdata on the situation.

 

[FentonGib]

thanx for that

Expanding Medic increases flavour, but cuts down on effectiveness. I ended up collapsing Engineer into one skill because it became too much for the engineer on my crew to handle

I felt the same - on a capship (which is meant to have 1 engineer per 50 tons of engines) you could expect a team of engineers, each in a different specialty, but on a small 200-ton vessel this means just one engineer and then that engineer will either be a jack of all trades of engineering (ie lots at 1) or good at one thing... but a small ship used by players is likely to have jump problems, thruster damage, hull damage, computer failures and more, so they need all.

My solution was to give the engineer npc in my game engineering (naval) which was justified as she was actually a ship architect for the navy and the ship the players are on is a prototype she designed. Engineering (naval) was introduced in High Guard and lets you use all engineering skills at a -2 Dm. Since she has Engineering (naval) 3 it means she effectively has all others at 1, which is good enough for now... she'll learn more about the individual bits in-game as time goes by. But I agree that the limited skills traveller characters get is both a strength and weakness...

Had to make a similar decision about melee (blades) - which in the Central Supply Catalogue is broken into small and large blades. I felt that though there was some difference in style, the basics of both styles of blade combat was essentially the same (ie thrust, parry, lunge, etc...) whilst a pistol and rifle are totally different (pistols rely more on good hand-eye-coordination, but rifles rely more on calculating effect of gravity, wind, curvature of earth, time to target, etc...).

I do think seperate engineering things is interesting (one of the players has Computers 4 and Engineering [electronics] 1, so even though the female engineer is acknowledged as much better than him, he is the ship's main engineer when it comes to the computer systems and related electronics).

I sometimes feel that some specialties should allow "synergy" skills to be used at -1. In Judge Dredd judges can use Drive [lawmaster] to use all other drive skills at -1 Dm, and Gun Combat [lawgiver] to use all gun combats at -1 DM. I may take a similar role, where related fields can be used at a -1 or -2DM. Though I like specialties, I find it hard to believe that someone with Gun Combat [slug rifles] 6 would only have a 0 for pistols or lasers... Or a top physician with the expanded Medicine [Cybernetics] 6 would only have 0 (ie as good as someone with a 2 week crash course) for trauma surgery, long-term treatment or other fields. The -2 DM I think would reflect a certain level of "base competency" for high-level skills.

This probably won't much affect the average starting player, who tend to average 0-2 on most skills, but it will for more experienced players.

 

[iainjcoleman]

thanx for that

[quote
My solution was to give the engineer npc in my game engineering (naval) which was justified as she was actually a ship architect for the navy and the ship the players are on is a prototype she designed. Engineering (naval) was introduced in High Guard and lets you use all engineering skills at a -2 Dm. Since she has Engineering (naval) 3 it means she effectively has all others at 1, which is good enough for now...

Interesting point. And if you combine that with a few levels in Discipline, so that the -2 DM can be removed a couple of times a day, you have a good all-round engineer.

 

[FentonGib]

True!

Hadn't thought of that... Thanx!

Am thinking that doing a house-rule whereby you can use any other specialty (that you can justifiably relate) at your level -2 (or -3) DM may be the fairest option overall for my game.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

thanx for that

My solution was to give the engineer npc in my game engineering (naval) which was justified as she was actually a ship architect for the navy and the ship the players are on is a prototype she designed. Engineering (naval) was introduced in High Guard and lets you use all engineering skills at a -2 Dm. Since she has Engineering (naval) 3 it means she effectively has all others at 1, which is good enough for now... she'll learn more about the individual bits in-game as time goes by. But I agree that the limited skills traveller characters get is both a strength and weakness...

Hmm.. the (naval) engineer skill is very specialised, and not as useful as the other specialiasations for general use, e.g. if a character has Engineer (Jump) 1, he also has Engineer (M drive), Engineer (electronics), Engineer (power) and Engineer (Lifesupport), all at 0, which is still quite a useful level for routine tasks or if you have plenty of time. Engineering (naval) is far to specialised, it is very theoretical and used to design ships.

I quite like the family of skills approach, though you can always argue with one or two specific ones (and introduce local modifications).

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Had to make a similar decision about melee (blades) - which in the Central Supply Catalogue is broken into small and large blades. I felt that though there was some difference in style, the basics of both styles of blade combat was essentially the same (ie thrust, parry, lunge, etc...) whilst a pistol and rifle are totally different (pistols rely more on good hand-eye-coordination, but rifles rely more on calculating effect of gravity, wind, curvature of earth, time to target, etc...).

Yeah, that the long and short of it, my character with a large blade 2 is skilled with his broadsword , but still gets a 0 if he has to use a knife, or his fist. His energy pistol 1 skill allows him to use all the other energy and slug weapon Gun Combat specialities at 0. Add a Dex 10 (so +1) and given a minor action to aim (+1) he can be pretty dangerous with any firearm (but very dangerous with a broadsword).

Egil

 

[FentonGib]

Hmm.. the (naval) engineer skill is very specialised, and not as useful as the other specialiasations for general use, e.g. if a character has Engineer (Jump) 1, he also has Engineer (M drive), Engineer (electronics), Engineer (power) and Engineer (Lifesupport), all at 0

In many ways, yeah. At low levels especially, since that -2DM would make it less than 0 (though it is an engineering skill, so wouldn't having that higher than 1 give all the others at 0 too?) but once you get to Engineering (naval) 3 then you effectively get all of the others at 1.

Imo someone with engineering (naval) would know "a little about all types of engineering" but not specialised in any except ship construction... which is probably what is represented by allowing all the Engineering specialties at the -2. After all a ship designer can't really design a ship unless he/she understands the jump systems, computers, manoeuver drives, etc... that are going into it.

I do however reflect (or intend to) in game as the engineer (naval) character understanding a lot about engineering "in theory" but little actual practice, and in game terms this character will be focusing on learning the other engineering skills. But as a starting point it makes for a pretty decent all-round engineer, though it means that she won't be particularly brilliant at any type of "practical" engineering at all.

I love the specialities for flavour, but do think that sometimes they're a bit too open, for example with melee (small blades) and melee (large blades). I think specialisations should only be used to seperate vastly different specializations, not "similar but different" - otherwise every skill could be specialized... e.g. Persuade could be broken into bluff, seduction, fast-talk and intimidate...

Guess I'll see in-game where the need is.

 

[DFW]

I made a skill called, Engineering (ships drives) that covers J-drives, M-drives
& PP. However it is somewhat TL sensitive. IE: You know Fusion PPs but not fission. You know about reaction-less M-Drives but not Chemical reaction M-drives, etc. OR, you know about those lower TL alternatives & not the other.

 

[FentonGib]

I made a skill called, Engineering (ships drives) that covers J-drives, M-drives & PP. However it is somewhat TL sensitive.

Interesting alternative. I suppose a similar variant could be done with Engineering [starship], Engineering [capital ship] or Engineering [small craft] which would allow you to work on any system on that category of ship, but nothing else - kinda like pilot.

 

[hdan]

I made a skill called, Engineering (ships drives) that covers J-drives, M-drives
& PP. However it is somewhat TL sensitive. IE: You know Fusion PPs but not fission. You know about reaction-less M-Drives but not Chemical reaction M-drives, etc. OR, you know about those lower TL alternatives & not the other.

I like that approach quite a lot, but I'm a "small set of general skills" type player.

Specialize in the type of vessel or installation (Starships, "Low Tech Spaceships", Sea-going Ships, trains, aircraft, city power grids, etc.) instead of the type of drive. Since you still get Engineering-0 in all other specializations, as a trained starship engineer, you would at least have a shot at working on a city's power plant, even if it's built on a scale much larger than you're used to.

It's not as realistic (why would a train engineer have any idea how to operate a nuclear reactor?), but it would make for a better game.

The only down side is "skill creep". Instead of having a point or two in each drive type, a player might have Engineer(Starship)-4, which is a whole different thing. However, it would mean that if you had that one character managing both PP and MD at the same time, the multiple action penalties would make things work out about the same.

Plus, an Engineer-4 SHOULD be a bad ass!

 

[DFW]

Plus, an Engineer-4 SHOULD be a bad ass!

Agreed. Think of "Scotty". That character would approximate that skill set.

 

[FentonGib]

Specialize in the type of vessel or installation (Starships, "Low Tech Spaceships", Sea-going Ships, trains, aircraft, city power grids, etc.)

I'd consider Starships to mean ships between 200 and 2000 tons, just like the pilot skill. I'd imagine a type F drive on a 200 ton ship to be the size of a room, but a type F on a 150,000 ton battleship would be the size of a village! hehe

Since you still get Engineering-0 in all other specializations, as a trained starship engineer, you would at least have a shot at working on a city's power plant, even if it's built on a scale much larger than you're used to.

Agreed. I tend to think of specialisations in terms of game balance and "how different are the specialties." Hence why I'm thinking of allowing similar engineering (or any other skill) specialties to be usable at -2 DM. Thus in your example someone with Engineering [Starships] 4 would be able to work on a Capital ship engine as if level 2, but when they get to a Nuclear Power Plant would only be a 0 because it's totally different, and he has to rely on his "general principles of engineering" training.

It's not as realistic (why would a train engineer have any idea how to operate a nuclear reactor?), but it would make for a better game.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I think the problem is the Engineering skills in the core handbook are focussed on spacecraft engineering, which doesn't equate well to, say, running a steam engine (ok, perhaps in Space 1889, but not in the Spinward Marches). Personally, we stick with the space engineering, but apply something different for lower tech engineering (basically for NPCs) through GM decisions. Many of these technical skills envisage a tech level of 10+, which may make links to some more archaic skills rather tenuous.

On a slightly different tack I am dubious as to whether Gunnery (turret) picked up through army service in a tank is always going to be useful in using turrets on a space craft (perhaps Heavy Weapons would be a more appropriate skill?)

But, this all adds to the fun of Traveller and gives the ref and the players lots to think about.

Egil

 

[FentonGib]

(perhaps Heavy Weapons would be a more appropriate skill?)

true... I can see more resemblences between a rocket launcher and a tank barrel than using a laser turret...

I guess we as Referees need to make judgement calls on what we're willing to allow in our games for game balance.

I'm not sure on the RAW, but I fully intend to impose -DMs on players if they try to use technology more than 3 levels out of their TLs... it's too archaic for them to understand properly, or too advanced (like O'Brien in Star Trek DS9 when they end up on the original enterprise and he doesn't know how anything works cos it's too old, or Scotty not understanding the new tech in TNG). At least until they've spent a few weeks "getting used to" it.

I've also told my players that in the case of melee (small blades, large blades) although I will accept one skill, if they use a weapon that's part of the general category but outside their normal usage (e.g. they normally use a dagger and they pick up a two-handed sword) I'll apply a -1 DM until they've spend a week training with it.

I find my players normally LIKE things like that, they prefer the realism element rather than metagaming ability to do anything. This was a common problem with World of Darkness, where e.g. Craft can be used for anything from baking a pie to building a tank... I don't see Delia Smith or Lloyd Grossman making many Harley Davidsons... lol

 

[rinku]

I think the problem is the Engineering skills in the core handbook are focussed on spacecraft engineering, which doesn't equate well to, say, running a steam engine (ok, perhaps in Space 1889, but not in the Spinward Marches). Personally, we stick with the space engineering, but apply something different for lower tech engineering (basically for NPCs) through GM decisions. Many of these technical skills envisage a tech level of 10+, which may make links to some more archaic skills rather tenuous.

On a slightly different tack I am dubious as to whether Gunnery (turret) picked up through army service in a tank is always going to be useful in using turrets on a space craft (perhaps Heavy Weapons would be a more appropriate skill?)

But, this all adds to the fun of Traveller and gives the ref and the players lots to think about.

Egil

My reading of the MGT rules is that fixing and operating steam engines would be squarely a Mechanics skill task. Engineering seems to be for more modern equipment based on electronics and electricity.

As far as Gunnery... despite it being listed in the Army skill tables, it IS Heavy Weapons that is actually used to fire artillery (including tank guns, fusion guns and laser cannons). Gunnery is specifically for shipborne weapons, per the skill description and would be useless for a tank or artillery gunner. I replace that entry with Heavy Weapons in my own campaigns.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I think the problem is the Engineering skills in the core handbook are focussed on spacecraft engineering, which doesn't equate well to, say, running a steam engine (ok, perhaps in Space 1889, but not in the Spinward Marches). Personally, we stick with the space engineering, but apply something different for lower tech engineering (basically for NPCs) through GM decisions. Many of these technical skills envisage a tech level of 10+, which may make links to some more archaic skills rather tenuous.

On a slightly different tack I am dubious as to whether Gunnery (turret) picked up through army service in a tank is always going to be useful in using turrets on a space craft (perhaps Heavy Weapons would be a more appropriate skill?)

But, this all adds to the fun of Traveller and gives the ref and the players lots to think about.

Egil

My reading of the MGT rules is that fixing and operating steam engines would be squarely a Mechanics skill task. Engineering seems to be for more modern equipment based on electronics and electricity.

As far as Gunnery... despite it being listed in the Army skill tables, it IS Heavy Weapons that is actually used to fire artillery (including tank guns, fusion guns and laser cannons). Gunnery is specifically for shipborne weapons, per the skill description and would be useless for a tank or artillery gunner. I replace that entry with Heavy Weapons in my own campaigns.

Yeah, the interpretation we arrived at, on both counts. You could argue that operating steam engines and carrying out simple repairs (basically "fitter" skills) is mechanic, but more advanced use or designing one is something else ("thermodynamic engineer" ?), but, really, it is hardly worth the complication, GM can adjucate such rare occurrences easily enough.

Egil

 

[AndrewW]

I'd consider Starships to mean ships between 200 and 2000 tons, just like the pilot skill. I'd imagine a type F drive on a 200 ton ship to be the size of a room, but a type F on a 150,000 ton battleship would be the size of a village! hehe

100 ton can be either a starship or small craft.

Type F drive doesn't change in size, but how much thrust/jump it gives you varies depending on the size of the ship. Capital ship drives aren't defined by letter codes.

 

[DFW]

Type F drive doesn't change in size, but how much thrust/jump it gives you varies depending on the size of the ship. Capital ship drives aren't defined by letter codes.

Correct. Also, the way in which a TL13 M-drive works on a 100 ton ship is identical to how a TL13 M-drive works on a 10,000 ton ship. The only difference is the size of the installation.

 

[FentonGib]

Fair enough I confuzzled myself on the letter type, but my point was that a drive that gives you thrust-4 on a 100 tonner (Type B, 15 tons) is a lot smaller than the equivalent thrust drive on a 50,000 ton capital ship for the same thrust (1.75% of 50,000 tons). I would expect even a small capship drive to be much bigger and thus more work/complex than that for a small ship. ie a justification what was said about possibly taking engineering categories by ship class rather than engine/plant/etc type.

GM can adjucate such rare occurrences easily enough.

I agree, which is why I'm more likely to be generalised rather than specific for things I think will be low-impact on the game. But in the case of bringing in medical skill specialities it will have a heavy impact on one player who atm has Medic 3, which means he's as good fixing a simple cut, doing open heart surgery or working on his technophile friend's cybernetics - but with the new rules he'll likely only be good at one of those things and 0 at the others (or drop to level 1 for all three). I like the specializations, but just wondering if using them may limit the player too much. Having said, I like the fact that I can have different players or NPCs and reflect that the players is the best trauma surgeon but the other NPC is an expert Genetech.