T5 Personal Combat System Review, Opinion, and Problems

[F33D]

Thanks a million for the "blow by blow". An important contribution especially since the product cannot be viewed in any store and is an expensive book.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

One part in the game where this is expressed is in movement. Remember that Speed-1 is human walking speed and Speed-2 is human running speed.

Range Band 0 - Contact Range

Range Band 1 - Very Short Range. 5m.

Range Band 2 - Short Range. 50m.

Range Band 3 - Medium Range. 150m.

Range Band 4 - Long Range. 500m.

Range Band 5 - Very Long Range. 1000m.

And so on...

A character, at Speed-1, can move from Contact to Very Short range in one combat round. That's a maximum 5 meter move. In round 2, the character can walk to Short Range. That's 6-50 meters away.

So, in round 3 the character can cover 100m, in round 4 400m and in round 5 500m, by round 10 he is doing 1000m a round, or possibly 10,000m, in a period of time which may be 1 minute, or may be an abstract representation of 10 seconds?

I like that MgT combat offers degree of accuracy, T5 seems very abstract.

On a different matter, you have cited AD&D a couple of times. I have played a lot of AD&D over the years, and am happy with 1 minute mellee rounds in that context, but Trav has a very different vibe. Not sure about your comments that the DMG was just Gygax's rough notes, that book certainly contains a lot of different things, but I always found it logically laid out and very easy to use, even as a 12 year old).

I don't have the Trav heritage of many on here, have only played MgT, but have played a lot of MgT in the last few years, and have found the system to be excellent. I judge MgT not in relation to previous versions of Trav, but on its own merits. Will take a lot of convincing for me to move to a different system for sci-fi gaming.

Egil

 

[Supplement Four]

Thanks S4, I really appreciate the time and effort to go through this in detail.

I did leave out a few things. There's a rule that gives the attacker a bonus on his attack if he spends a round aiming. For Low Skill or No Skill characters, a penalty +1D is added to difficulty if their skill is lower than the target's Range Band number.

An attacker can make the attack Cautious or Hasty, and there is a method to rob the initiative from an enemy going before you.

Oh, and above, I've griped about the First Attacker Rule. Well, I did find another way for attackers to suppress their targets on a successful hit, so I'm a bit more accepting of the First Attacker Rule now.

And, the multiple target House Rule that we developed--it seems that what we developed is actually a version of the rules (though it's not expressed that way in the Combat chapter).

Regarding STAMP, I think I would change it around to STAPM (I know not as cool an acronym), so that you roll damage immediately after rolling the attacks, then do movement. That at least keeps them together and easier to track.

I was thinking along the same lines, myself. It's silly to break up the damage part from the attack roll. But, I do understand why he did it--he's trying to simulate a simultaneous round.

CT defaulted to Movement first, then attack.

 

[Supplement Four]

So, in round 3 the character can cover 100m, in round 4 400m and in round 5 500m, by round 10 he is doing 1000m a round, or possibly 10,000m, in a period of time which may be 1 minute, or may be an abstract representation of 10 seconds?

I've realized that I did not report how movement in the higher Range Bands is conducted. Disregard my description a few posts up in this thread.

I like that MgT combat offers degree of accuracy, T5 seems very abstract.

Yes, T5 is very abstract in some areas.

On a different matter, you have cited AD&D a couple of times. I have played a lot of AD&D over the years, and am happy with 1 minute mellee rounds in that context, but Trav has a very different vibe.

I'm not sure I disagree. I was shocked to see the abstract rounds in T5 when I first started reading it, but I've warmed a little to the idea.

Not sure about your comments that the DMG was just Gygax's rough notes, that book certainly contains a lot of different things, but I always found it logically laid out and very easy to use, even as a 12 year old).

Take combat for example in AD&D. There's stuff about it all over the place. There's some in the DMG. Then, there's different stuff in the PHB. Then, there's another section in the PHB.

T5 certainly mimmics that (and that's not a good thing).

Will take a lot of convincing for me to move to a different system for sci-fi gaming.

If you want to see a bad assed system for playing sci-fi stuff, check out D6 Star Wars. FANTASTIC game.

Egil[/quote]