Making T20 more like Classic Traveller

[wordserpent]

Hello Friends, I was reading a thread a while back about how deadly T20 was/wsn't and there were many comparisons to Classic Taveller.

Now I love classic Traveller but There are certain advangages I find in the D20 system. But I do miss the deadly element of CT, so I am going to propose an option here that might alleviate the "I have more stamina points than that weapon can deal out, so here I go.." mentality.

No more Stamina/Lifeblood.
Damage will be done directly to a characters physical stats, just like in Classic Traveller. This makes every weapon potentially leathal, just like in the real world and will force even the moost badass of characters to think before they get into a firefight.

Upon sustaining a hit, roll 1d6, then subtract the damage from:
1-2 Str
3-4 Dex
5-6 Con

When any stat reaches zero, the character falls unconscious. If he or she is damaged while unconscious then they are dead as though killed by a coup-de-grace.

 

[Valarian]

I'd go for just having Lifeblood, but allowing Reflex / Fortitude saves to avoid / reduce damage.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by wordserpent:
No more Stamina/Lifeblood.
Damage will be done directly to a characters physical stats, just like in Classic Traveller. This makes every weapon potentially leathal, just like in the real world and will force even the moost badass of characters to think before they get into a firefight.

Upon sustaining a hit, roll 1d6, then subtract the damage from:
1-2 Str
3-4 Dex
5-6 Con

When any stat reaches zero, the character falls unconscious. If he or she is damaged while unconscious then they are dead as though killed by a coup-de-grace.

This effectively gives a character three times the lifeblood he would have in T20

 

[princelian]

Sigg's got a real good point, there, but I immediately glommed onto Wordserpent's idea, if only because PCs hate stat damage.

Mean lifeblood (LB) is probably 14.5 - presumably, one will try to put a good stat in Con, because LB's so important. Mean physical stats are probably lower (let's say 13.5 just because it has a CT ring to it [13.5 cumets per metric ton of liquid hydrogen] ).

Total physical stats are about 40, then, so to make Wordserpent's idea work without nearly-tripling LB, each point of damage needs to do [40/14.5 = 2.76] points of stat damage. One approach is to multiply LB damage by 3 (close enough to 2.76 for government work) and apply it to stats.

***More die-rolling approach approaching, Keptin.***

2.76 is also close enough to 2.5 for government work, which handily is the mean for 1d4. You could rule that each point of LB damage needs to spawn 1d4 stat damage, and then you could play games with spreading it around (each d4 goes to a different stat) or not spreading it around (all d4s go to one stat).

3d6 firearm strikes you while you're wearing a leather jacket [AV1] only. 2d6 penetrates doing 10 points of LB, or 10d4 stat damage. One could take the damage to a stat (mean of 10d4 = 25, probably dropping you immediately like a good solid 10-point hit could in "real life").

Or one could pepper it around, randomly determining which stat gets each d4. I don't recommend this approach unless you have gads of color-coded d3s and d4s, but if you did it this way, you'd take about 4d4 (mean 10) to one stat and about 3d4 (mean 7.5) to the other two. This doesn't knock you out, most likely, but does slow you down a bunch. (Don't forget to recalculate your AC, your attack bonus, and your encumberance!)

Or you could just divide the damage equally between the three stats, resolving any odd points randomly. In the above 10d4 example, that would do 9 points to one stat and 8 points to two others.

The last system isn't very CT-esque, so if you're looking for a CT feel to T20 damage, I'd go with the first option (multiplying LB by a constant factor, say 2, 2.5, or 3; the whole d4 thing is neato from the "I like to roll dice" perspective, but will be time-consuming), where any signficant internal damage will drop you pretty fast.

Just brainstorming, really.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Can I state that I am not too fond of the actual names "Stamina" and "Lifeblood"?

Stamina sounds like too hard of a try, and it also is a synonym for Constitution

Lifeblood sounds just kind of wierd. It is not a regular usage word. It sounds a little too much like it was thought up by someone that says "Huzzah" a lot.

For MTU, I use "Stun" and "Kill" damage. Getting whupped on with a baseball bat kill you eventually, but after taking a lot of Stun damage. I know it sounds star trekish, but i do not like typing out STamina and Lifeblood all the time, nor do I find the abreviations helpful..

ST = Star TRek to most nerds, I had a new player ask "what's Star Trek got to do with it?" after seeing ST in a book

LB = A pound of weight. REalize that CT/T20 is metric by and large, but it is the details that can matter sometimes...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by princelian:
(let's say 13.5 just because it has a CT ring to it [13.5 cumets per metric ton of liquid hydrogen] ).

Shouldn't that be 14/dTon?

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
For MTU, I use "Stun" and "Kill" damage. Getting whupped on with a baseball bat kill you eventually, but after taking a lot of Stun damage.

Nice idea ... I think I'll nick it. Ta!
(Rough Translation: Thanks for the inspiration)

Alternatives to the Stun/Kill terms could be lethal and non-lethal damage. Lethal damage (i.e. guns etc.) taken straight from Lifeblood. Non-lethal (e.g. the baseball bat) taken from Stamina first, then Lifeblood.

 

[princelian]

Fritz88:

Shouldn't that be 14/dTon?

Yep, ya got me. I don't know where that 13.5 number came from, but I "clearly" remembered using 13.5 as the dtonnage multiplier back in the CT days.

Density of LHyd = 0.071 kg/L = 14 L/kg = 14 cubic meters/metric ton.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I use Stun and Kill because it is faster typing.

 

[Chaos]

Originally posted by princelian:
Fritz88:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Shouldn't that be 14/dTon?

Yep, ya got me. I don't know where that 13.5 number came from, but I "clearly" remembered using 13.5 as the dtonnage multiplier back in the CT days.

Density of LHyd = 0.071 kg/L = 14 L/kg = 14 cubic meters/metric ton. </font>[/QUOTE]Gt says a dton is 500 cubic feet. And using the "quick and dirty" ratio of 1 ft = 0.3 m, 500 cf are 13.5 m^3

 

[mike wightman]

Funny, 'cos if you use the approximation that 1 cubic foot = 28 litres, then 500 cubic feet is 14,000litres or 14 cubic metres exactly

 

[daryen]

Both 13.5 and 14 have been used. My foggy memory says CT used one, and MT the other, but I could be confusing it.

I do know that both 13.5 and 14 have been used at different times, however. So you're not nuts, princelian.

 

[mike wightman]

MT used 13.5m^3, GT uses 500 cubic feet, CT, TNE, T4, and T20 all use 14m^3.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Sigg, I thought it was the other way around with MT and CT. But, yeah, that was my point....

 

[princelian]

daryen:

Both 13.5 and 14 have been used. My foggy memory says CT used one, and MT the other, but I could be confusing it.

I do know that both 13.5 and 14 have been used at different times, however. So you're not nuts, princelian.

Daryen, you don't know me NEAR well enough to make that assertion.

But thanks for the information - I was so certain that 13.5 was the value. (And, if it was, it was CT that used it. Of that much I'm sure, that if the thing I'm unsure of is true, then it was CT.)

<see, nuts!>

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Round Up! A Nice round number. 14. Why split hairs?

 

[shadowdragon]

resurrection blvd........

it really depends on how you make your grids

1.5 x 1.5 x 3 = 6.75, 2 squares = 13.5 m^3
2 x 2 x 3.5 = 14, 1 square = 14 m^3

the funny thing is T20 says to use 1.5m grids 3m tall, and 2 squares = 14m^3, when in fact it equals 13.5m^3......

and now i cannot find the reference for using the 2 x 2 x 3.5 sized grid for deckplans...grrrrrrr.........

 

[aramis]

it really depends on how you make your grids

1.5 x 1.5 x 3 = 6.75, 2 squares = 13.5 m^3
2 x 2 x 3.5 = 14, 1 square = 14 m^3

the funny thing is T20 says to use 1.5m grids 3m tall, and 2 squares = 14m^3, when in fact it equals 13.5m^3......

and now i cannot find the reference for using the 2 x 2 x 3.5 sized grid for deckplans...grrrrrrr.........

Those are in TNE, not in CT. CT used 1.5x1.5x3, at 2 squares. Chalk up the remainder to deck thickness and walls.

 

[Straybow]

And what of T20, now that WotC has moved on to 4e?

 

[aramis]

And what of T20, now that WotC has moved on to 4e?

License (from Marc) expires in a year or so.

OGL for d20 doesn't.