What were the problems with MT?

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
Blast! My 8 or less Dependent NPC got killed... I guess I'll have to roll 11 or less to see if I go Berserk... I should have been able to smell that coming...

That's not just 'Blast!' but 'Firk! Ding! Blast!'

DNPC is like tying a knot around your neck and handing the ref the rope. It is the *least favorite* disad I can think of, because it often seems to get used out of all proportion.

Aside:

Larsen is right in that any game (HERO, GURPS, other) that has a lot of disad/ads means the GM has to at least know what they are and the players will tend to remind him of the ads and conveniently forget to mention the disads. Keeping track of too many (or even inflicting too many) can be quite a pain for the GM. As a HERO example, if everyone in the party has 2-3 different Hunted disads, then the GM could quite reasonably spend every adventure making the party flee from someone's Hunters. But that gets dull quick. The trick becomes one of rotating who you pick on for disads but in making sure disads come out...

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
DNPC is like tying a knot around your neck and handing the ref the rope. It is the *least favorite* disad I can think of, because it often seems to get used out of all proportion.

Probably because it usually comes accompanied with some background that's handed to the GM, who feels obliged to use this information at some point in the game. And since most games revolve around conflict, a dandy way to use the dependent is to have them kidnapped, threatened, injured, or even killed. Doing something to stop someone hurting the one you love is always a guaranteed motivator (unless you're completely inhuman or in a worse situation yourself). I'd say that most of the time they're used exactly in proportion by the GM, because if you didn't mention them to the GM then they're not important enough for you to care about or to consider in the game.

Though that said, I was in a Heavy Gear game recently and my character had a fiancee. I was fully expecting her to be killed, injured or kidnapped by the CEF (the bad guys)... but nothing bad happened. She was just always there for support when we got back from our incredibly suicidally dangerous missions. And that rocked. (lots of 'fade to black' scenes going on there

).

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
DNPC is like tying a knot around your neck and handing the ref the rope. It is the *least favorite* disad I can think of, because it often seems to get used out of all proportion.

Probably because it usually comes accompanied with some background that's handed to the GM, who feels obliged to use this information at some point in the game. And since most games revolve around conflict, a dandy way to use the dependent is to have them kidnapped, threatened, injured, or even killed. Doing something to stop someone hurting the one you love is always a guaranteed motivator (unless you're completely inhuman or in a worse situation yourself). I'd say that most of the time they're used exactly in proportion by the GM, because if you didn't mention them to the GM then they're not important enough for you to care about or to consider in the game.

Though that said, I was in a Heavy Gear game recently and my character had a fiancee. I was fully expecting her to be killed, injured or kidnapped by the CEF (the bad guys)... but nothing bad happened. She was just always there for support when we got back from our incredibly suicidally dangerous missions. And that rocked. (lots of 'fade to black' scenes going on there

).

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
DNPC is like tying a knot around your neck and handing the ref the rope. It is the *least favorite* disad I can think of, because it often seems to get used out of all proportion.

Probably because it usually comes accompanied with some background that's handed to the GM, who feels obliged to use this information at some point in the game. And since most games revolve around conflict, a dandy way to use the dependent is to have them kidnapped, threatened, injured, or even killed. Doing something to stop someone hurting the one you love is always a guaranteed motivator (unless you're completely inhuman or in a worse situation yourself). I'd say that most of the time they're used exactly in proportion by the GM, because if you didn't mention them to the GM then they're not important enough for you to care about or to consider in the game.

Though that said, I was in a Heavy Gear game recently and my character had a fiancee. I was fully expecting her to be killed, injured or kidnapped by the CEF (the bad guys)... but nothing bad happened. She was just always there for support when we got back from our incredibly suicidally dangerous missions. And that rocked. (lots of 'fade to black' scenes going on there

).

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
Probably because it usually comes accompanied with some background that's handed to the GM, who feels obliged to use this information at some point in the game. And since most games revolve around conflict, a dandy way to use the dependent is to have them kidnapped, threatened, injured, or even killed. Doing something to stop someone hurting the one you love is always a guaranteed motivator (unless you're completely inhuman or in a worse situation yourself). I'd say that most of the time they're used exactly in proportion by the GM, because if you didn't mention them to the GM then they're not important enough for you to care about or to consider in the game.

Let me be very specific: I restate my original position that they are used out of proportion. This is particular to the HERO system, but often seems to appear in other systems too. I didn't say that using a DNPC was a bad thing, I'm arguing about the usual evaluation of the disads value versus other disads and the relative frequence/disadvantage that it appears to be.

All of the threats you listed occur to DNPCs. They got shot, stapled, kidnapped, molested, or they eat up your time, threaten your secret ID, get in the way, make outrageous demands, etc. They are *very* easy to make show up as a disadvantage.

Contrast this with many other disads, a lot of which are worth (in HERO anyway) about half as much as a nasty DNPC. But they probably come up about an eigth or less of the time because it *is* possible to pick a disad that is a disad, but where the types of situation it applies in don't occur much or are avoidable. So as long as you apply some thought, you avoid the problem. The same tends not to be true of the DNPC as the problems here are usually of the 'inflicted upon you regardless' variety.

So I will argue that as a player, I'd rather have colourblindness, lack of sense of smell, vulnerability to Craptonite, one bum leg giving me a limp, etc. than even the simplest of DNPCs. They're *too easy* to abuse, and that's why I think many refs go with abusing them - it is easy, almost a no-brainer, and using a disad against character X is usually the issue.... then I can go to character Y... instead of worrying about how much character X payed for each of his disads and how to abuse each in rotation.... the general focus tends to be in spreading the hurt, but going for the easiest vector. The DNPC is a very easy vector.

I say this after having watched these things used in half a dozen or more groups over 20 years of gaming in different systems.

I like the DNPC, I just find it is one the Ref can abuse if he or she isn't *very* careful, because it is so easy to invoke them.

Though that said, I was in a Heavy Gear game recently and my character had a fiancee. I was fully expecting her to be killed, injured or kidnapped by the CEF (the bad guys)... but nothing bad happened. She was just always there for support when we got back from our incredibly suicidally dangerous missions. And that rocked. (lots of 'fade to black' scenes going on there

). [/QB]

That's why they call it Fiction. In the real world, she'd probably be wondering where you were, complaining about the company you keep, telling you you need a bath, tsk tsking over the new plasma burns, and chewing you out for forgetting the two cartons of milk and the box of feminine hygiene products....

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
Probably because it usually comes accompanied with some background that's handed to the GM, who feels obliged to use this information at some point in the game. And since most games revolve around conflict, a dandy way to use the dependent is to have them kidnapped, threatened, injured, or even killed. Doing something to stop someone hurting the one you love is always a guaranteed motivator (unless you're completely inhuman or in a worse situation yourself). I'd say that most of the time they're used exactly in proportion by the GM, because if you didn't mention them to the GM then they're not important enough for you to care about or to consider in the game.

Let me be very specific: I restate my original position that they are used out of proportion. This is particular to the HERO system, but often seems to appear in other systems too. I didn't say that using a DNPC was a bad thing, I'm arguing about the usual evaluation of the disads value versus other disads and the relative frequence/disadvantage that it appears to be.

All of the threats you listed occur to DNPCs. They got shot, stapled, kidnapped, molested, or they eat up your time, threaten your secret ID, get in the way, make outrageous demands, etc. They are *very* easy to make show up as a disadvantage.

Contrast this with many other disads, a lot of which are worth (in HERO anyway) about half as much as a nasty DNPC. But they probably come up about an eigth or less of the time because it *is* possible to pick a disad that is a disad, but where the types of situation it applies in don't occur much or are avoidable. So as long as you apply some thought, you avoid the problem. The same tends not to be true of the DNPC as the problems here are usually of the 'inflicted upon you regardless' variety.

So I will argue that as a player, I'd rather have colourblindness, lack of sense of smell, vulnerability to Craptonite, one bum leg giving me a limp, etc. than even the simplest of DNPCs. They're *too easy* to abuse, and that's why I think many refs go with abusing them - it is easy, almost a no-brainer, and using a disad against character X is usually the issue.... then I can go to character Y... instead of worrying about how much character X payed for each of his disads and how to abuse each in rotation.... the general focus tends to be in spreading the hurt, but going for the easiest vector. The DNPC is a very easy vector.

I say this after having watched these things used in half a dozen or more groups over 20 years of gaming in different systems.

I like the DNPC, I just find it is one the Ref can abuse if he or she isn't *very* careful, because it is so easy to invoke them.

Though that said, I was in a Heavy Gear game recently and my character had a fiancee. I was fully expecting her to be killed, injured or kidnapped by the CEF (the bad guys)... but nothing bad happened. She was just always there for support when we got back from our incredibly suicidally dangerous missions. And that rocked. (lots of 'fade to black' scenes going on there

). [/QB]

That's why they call it Fiction. In the real world, she'd probably be wondering where you were, complaining about the company you keep, telling you you need a bath, tsk tsking over the new plasma burns, and chewing you out for forgetting the two cartons of milk and the box of feminine hygiene products....

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
Probably because it usually comes accompanied with some background that's handed to the GM, who feels obliged to use this information at some point in the game. And since most games revolve around conflict, a dandy way to use the dependent is to have them kidnapped, threatened, injured, or even killed. Doing something to stop someone hurting the one you love is always a guaranteed motivator (unless you're completely inhuman or in a worse situation yourself). I'd say that most of the time they're used exactly in proportion by the GM, because if you didn't mention them to the GM then they're not important enough for you to care about or to consider in the game.

Let me be very specific: I restate my original position that they are used out of proportion. This is particular to the HERO system, but often seems to appear in other systems too. I didn't say that using a DNPC was a bad thing, I'm arguing about the usual evaluation of the disads value versus other disads and the relative frequence/disadvantage that it appears to be.

All of the threats you listed occur to DNPCs. They got shot, stapled, kidnapped, molested, or they eat up your time, threaten your secret ID, get in the way, make outrageous demands, etc. They are *very* easy to make show up as a disadvantage.

Contrast this with many other disads, a lot of which are worth (in HERO anyway) about half as much as a nasty DNPC. But they probably come up about an eigth or less of the time because it *is* possible to pick a disad that is a disad, but where the types of situation it applies in don't occur much or are avoidable. So as long as you apply some thought, you avoid the problem. The same tends not to be true of the DNPC as the problems here are usually of the 'inflicted upon you regardless' variety.

So I will argue that as a player, I'd rather have colourblindness, lack of sense of smell, vulnerability to Craptonite, one bum leg giving me a limp, etc. than even the simplest of DNPCs. They're *too easy* to abuse, and that's why I think many refs go with abusing them - it is easy, almost a no-brainer, and using a disad against character X is usually the issue.... then I can go to character Y... instead of worrying about how much character X payed for each of his disads and how to abuse each in rotation.... the general focus tends to be in spreading the hurt, but going for the easiest vector. The DNPC is a very easy vector.

I say this after having watched these things used in half a dozen or more groups over 20 years of gaming in different systems.

I like the DNPC, I just find it is one the Ref can abuse if he or she isn't *very* careful, because it is so easy to invoke them.

Though that said, I was in a Heavy Gear game recently and my character had a fiancee. I was fully expecting her to be killed, injured or kidnapped by the CEF (the bad guys)... but nothing bad happened. She was just always there for support when we got back from our incredibly suicidally dangerous missions. And that rocked. (lots of 'fade to black' scenes going on there

). [/QB]

That's why they call it Fiction. In the real world, she'd probably be wondering where you were, complaining about the company you keep, telling you you need a bath, tsk tsking over the new plasma burns, and chewing you out for forgetting the two cartons of milk and the box of feminine hygiene products....

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
ASsuming you're talking about T20 feats here, I think QLI kinda missed the point with those. I was always under the impression that feats were like 'special maneouvres'that one could do. I found it all horrendously confusing). If they stuck to the original definition, then I think they should have had 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' as a skill, and the associated feat would be something like 'Stunt Driving' that allowed the pilot to do flashy stunts while piloting it.

Well d20 Modern has Aircraft Operation and Surface Vehicle Operation * which seem to work like the various Pilot feats in T20 as well as "skilled" or "flashy" feats such as Vehicle Dodge and Vehicle Expert. I see the various Pilot feats as a Driver or Pilot's license. With the increased number of feats in T20 classes as opposed to say D&D3E or d20 Modern it's not a problem IMO. Especially since there's only one Pilot skill the Pilot feats indicate what types of vehicles/ships the character is skilled in.

From what I've seen feats in general in d20 are either extra skill points (sometimes in specific situations only), proficiencies, or stunt/cool stuff. I used the d20 Modern SRD feats section for this post.

* which is for "unusual" vehicles only. In T20 since Traveller has differing TL's the "normal" vehicle is determined by the PC's homeworld feats.

[EDIT] I forgot about the Driving skill which has corresponding classes of Vessel feats. Since Traveller covers both planetary vehicles and space/starships in Vessel featsthough I can see the need for two main categories/skills. And you always use the vehicle "stunt" feats from d20 Modern, Spycraft, etc. along with Vessel Specialization in T20.

Finally there's only a -2 penalty to use a vessel within a subgroup if you have a related vessel feat. (instead of the normal -4) i.e. you don't have to have every vessel feat in a subgroup.

Pardon the intrusion on a MT thread.

Casey

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
ASsuming you're talking about T20 feats here, I think QLI kinda missed the point with those. I was always under the impression that feats were like 'special maneouvres'that one could do. I found it all horrendously confusing). If they stuck to the original definition, then I think they should have had 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' as a skill, and the associated feat would be something like 'Stunt Driving' that allowed the pilot to do flashy stunts while piloting it.

Well d20 Modern has Aircraft Operation and Surface Vehicle Operation * which seem to work like the various Pilot feats in T20 as well as "skilled" or "flashy" feats such as Vehicle Dodge and Vehicle Expert. I see the various Pilot feats as a Driver or Pilot's license. With the increased number of feats in T20 classes as opposed to say D&D3E or d20 Modern it's not a problem IMO. Especially since there's only one Pilot skill the Pilot feats indicate what types of vehicles/ships the character is skilled in.

From what I've seen feats in general in d20 are either extra skill points (sometimes in specific situations only), proficiencies, or stunt/cool stuff. I used the d20 Modern SRD feats section for this post.

* which is for "unusual" vehicles only. In T20 since Traveller has differing TL's the "normal" vehicle is determined by the PC's homeworld feats.

[EDIT] I forgot about the Driving skill which has corresponding classes of Vessel feats. Since Traveller covers both planetary vehicles and space/starships in Vessel featsthough I can see the need for two main categories/skills. And you always use the vehicle "stunt" feats from d20 Modern, Spycraft, etc. along with Vessel Specialization in T20.

Finally there's only a -2 penalty to use a vessel within a subgroup if you have a related vessel feat. (instead of the normal -4) i.e. you don't have to have every vessel feat in a subgroup.

Pardon the intrusion on a MT thread.

Casey

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
ASsuming you're talking about T20 feats here, I think QLI kinda missed the point with those. I was always under the impression that feats were like 'special maneouvres'that one could do. I found it all horrendously confusing). If they stuck to the original definition, then I think they should have had 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' as a skill, and the associated feat would be something like 'Stunt Driving' that allowed the pilot to do flashy stunts while piloting it.

Well d20 Modern has Aircraft Operation and Surface Vehicle Operation * which seem to work like the various Pilot feats in T20 as well as "skilled" or "flashy" feats such as Vehicle Dodge and Vehicle Expert. I see the various Pilot feats as a Driver or Pilot's license. With the increased number of feats in T20 classes as opposed to say D&D3E or d20 Modern it's not a problem IMO. Especially since there's only one Pilot skill the Pilot feats indicate what types of vehicles/ships the character is skilled in.

From what I've seen feats in general in d20 are either extra skill points (sometimes in specific situations only), proficiencies, or stunt/cool stuff. I used the d20 Modern SRD feats section for this post.

* which is for "unusual" vehicles only. In T20 since Traveller has differing TL's the "normal" vehicle is determined by the PC's homeworld feats.

[EDIT] I forgot about the Driving skill which has corresponding classes of Vessel feats. Since Traveller covers both planetary vehicles and space/starships in Vessel featsthough I can see the need for two main categories/skills. And you always use the vehicle "stunt" feats from d20 Modern, Spycraft, etc. along with Vessel Specialization in T20.

Finally there's only a -2 penalty to use a vessel within a subgroup if you have a related vessel feat. (instead of the normal -4) i.e. you don't have to have every vessel feat in a subgroup.

Pardon the intrusion on a MT thread.

Casey

 

[kaladorn]

Casey,

Education is rarely considered an intrusion. At worst it'd be OT, but threads here tend to wander a bit

I'm still a bit vague on some bits: If feats are 'extra skill mods' (ie I have a pilot skill then some sort of feats for stunt driving or high speed driving), how can I have a feat without the skill? Or can I not do this? And if I can, how does that make any sense? Why ever take a skill if a feat can substitute? And how are the two acquired (I assume the answer is 'differently' but I'm wondering how the mechanism differs).

 

[kaladorn]

Casey,

Education is rarely considered an intrusion. At worst it'd be OT, but threads here tend to wander a bit

I'm still a bit vague on some bits: If feats are 'extra skill mods' (ie I have a pilot skill then some sort of feats for stunt driving or high speed driving), how can I have a feat without the skill? Or can I not do this? And if I can, how does that make any sense? Why ever take a skill if a feat can substitute? And how are the two acquired (I assume the answer is 'differently' but I'm wondering how the mechanism differs).

 

[kaladorn]

Casey,

Education is rarely considered an intrusion. At worst it'd be OT, but threads here tend to wander a bit

I'm still a bit vague on some bits: If feats are 'extra skill mods' (ie I have a pilot skill then some sort of feats for stunt driving or high speed driving), how can I have a feat without the skill? Or can I not do this? And if I can, how does that make any sense? Why ever take a skill if a feat can substitute? And how are the two acquired (I assume the answer is 'differently' but I'm wondering how the mechanism differs).

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Casey:
Well d20 Modern has Aircraft Operation and Surface Vehicle Operation * which seem to work like the various Pilot feats in T20 as well as "skilled" or "flashy" feats such as Vehicle Dodge and Vehicle Expert. I see the various Pilot feats as a Driver or Pilot's license. With the increased number of feats in T20 classes as opposed to say D&D3E or d20 Modern it's not a problem IMO. Especially since there's only one Pilot skill the Pilot feats indicate what types of vehicles/ships the character is skilled in.

I could almost see the point of the Aircraft Operation feat in D20M - the Pilot skill in d20M relates only to small fixed wing aircraft, and you can only take the feat when you get Pilot 4 and that allows you to pilot heavy planes, choppers, or other odd things. So it could vaguely be thought of as a 'stunt' thing that could be sorta like a 'special manoeuvre'.

But IIRC in T20 that doesn't happen. You need the Pilot Grav Vehicle feat in order to have any level of the corresponding skill. For some reason you have to waste both a skill and a feat slot to be able to fly a grav vehicle with any vague degree of competence. That doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Casey:
Well d20 Modern has Aircraft Operation and Surface Vehicle Operation * which seem to work like the various Pilot feats in T20 as well as "skilled" or "flashy" feats such as Vehicle Dodge and Vehicle Expert. I see the various Pilot feats as a Driver or Pilot's license. With the increased number of feats in T20 classes as opposed to say D&D3E or d20 Modern it's not a problem IMO. Especially since there's only one Pilot skill the Pilot feats indicate what types of vehicles/ships the character is skilled in.

I could almost see the point of the Aircraft Operation feat in D20M - the Pilot skill in d20M relates only to small fixed wing aircraft, and you can only take the feat when you get Pilot 4 and that allows you to pilot heavy planes, choppers, or other odd things. So it could vaguely be thought of as a 'stunt' thing that could be sorta like a 'special manoeuvre'.

But IIRC in T20 that doesn't happen. You need the Pilot Grav Vehicle feat in order to have any level of the corresponding skill. For some reason you have to waste both a skill and a feat slot to be able to fly a grav vehicle with any vague degree of competence. That doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Casey:
Well d20 Modern has Aircraft Operation and Surface Vehicle Operation * which seem to work like the various Pilot feats in T20 as well as "skilled" or "flashy" feats such as Vehicle Dodge and Vehicle Expert. I see the various Pilot feats as a Driver or Pilot's license. With the increased number of feats in T20 classes as opposed to say D&D3E or d20 Modern it's not a problem IMO. Especially since there's only one Pilot skill the Pilot feats indicate what types of vehicles/ships the character is skilled in.

I could almost see the point of the Aircraft Operation feat in D20M - the Pilot skill in d20M relates only to small fixed wing aircraft, and you can only take the feat when you get Pilot 4 and that allows you to pilot heavy planes, choppers, or other odd things. So it could vaguely be thought of as a 'stunt' thing that could be sorta like a 'special manoeuvre'.

But IIRC in T20 that doesn't happen. You need the Pilot Grav Vehicle feat in order to have any level of the corresponding skill. For some reason you have to waste both a skill and a feat slot to be able to fly a grav vehicle with any vague degree of competence. That doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by kaladorn:

I'm still a bit vague on some bits: If feats are 'extra skill mods' (ie I have a pilot skill then some sort of feats for stunt driving or high speed driving), how can I have a feat without the skill? Or can I not do this? And if I can, how does that make any sense? Why ever take a skill if a feat can substitute? And how are the two acquired (I assume the answer is 'differently' but I'm wondering how the mechanism differs).

In the Vessel feats case, if you get a vessel feat related to the driving skill (i.e. like a car) you automatically gain the driving skill at rank 0. Same for vessel feats related to the piloting skill.

Since T20 uses classes and levels at each level a characters gets so many skill points to buy ranks in skills and possibly 1 or more feats to pick.

Since you get far more skill points than feats per level the normal way to increase your skills is by skill points.

Not all feats provide a simple skill bonus. Please refer to T20 and/or your favorite d20 Core book/SRD.

HTH. And if you have t20 but no d20 core books I suggest you download any of the freely available d20 SRDs from here if you have not already done so. There are pdf versions out there. I used the d20 Modern SRD since it is closest to T20 in form and theme.

Casey

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by kaladorn:

I'm still a bit vague on some bits: If feats are 'extra skill mods' (ie I have a pilot skill then some sort of feats for stunt driving or high speed driving), how can I have a feat without the skill? Or can I not do this? And if I can, how does that make any sense? Why ever take a skill if a feat can substitute? And how are the two acquired (I assume the answer is 'differently' but I'm wondering how the mechanism differs).

In the Vessel feats case, if you get a vessel feat related to the driving skill (i.e. like a car) you automatically gain the driving skill at rank 0. Same for vessel feats related to the piloting skill.

Since T20 uses classes and levels at each level a characters gets so many skill points to buy ranks in skills and possibly 1 or more feats to pick.

Since you get far more skill points than feats per level the normal way to increase your skills is by skill points.

Not all feats provide a simple skill bonus. Please refer to T20 and/or your favorite d20 Core book/SRD.

HTH. And if you have t20 but no d20 core books I suggest you download any of the freely available d20 SRDs from here if you have not already done so. There are pdf versions out there. I used the d20 Modern SRD since it is closest to T20 in form and theme.

Casey

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by kaladorn:

I'm still a bit vague on some bits: If feats are 'extra skill mods' (ie I have a pilot skill then some sort of feats for stunt driving or high speed driving), how can I have a feat without the skill? Or can I not do this? And if I can, how does that make any sense? Why ever take a skill if a feat can substitute? And how are the two acquired (I assume the answer is 'differently' but I'm wondering how the mechanism differs).

In the Vessel feats case, if you get a vessel feat related to the driving skill (i.e. like a car) you automatically gain the driving skill at rank 0. Same for vessel feats related to the piloting skill.

Since T20 uses classes and levels at each level a characters gets so many skill points to buy ranks in skills and possibly 1 or more feats to pick.

Since you get far more skill points than feats per level the normal way to increase your skills is by skill points.

Not all feats provide a simple skill bonus. Please refer to T20 and/or your favorite d20 Core book/SRD.

HTH. And if you have t20 but no d20 core books I suggest you download any of the freely available d20 SRDs from here if you have not already done so. There are pdf versions out there. I used the d20 Modern SRD since it is closest to T20 in form and theme.

Casey

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:

I could almost see the point of the Aircraft Operation feat in D20M <snip> So it could vaguely be thought of as a 'stunt' thing that could be sorta like a 'special manoeuvre'.

But IIRC in T20 that doesn't happen. You need the Pilot Grav Vehicle feat in order to have any level of the corresponding skill. For some reason you have to waste both a skill and a feat slot to be able to fly a grav vehicle with any vague degree of competence. That doesn't make sense to me at all.

d20 Modern has one TL. T20 has many. Feats don't have to be stunts or special moves. They are IMO another thing to set a character apart from other and especially from similar characters. (i.e. one level 5 Marine from another level 5 Marine. One may be able to drive a Grav tank while another may pilot a Ship's Boat)

Homeworld feats are automatic based on a characters homeworld and are vessel based above a certain TL (based on MT's homeworld skills IIRC). And if you get the Vessel feat you *automatically* get the corresponding skill (either Driving or Pilot) at rank 0.

So most characters (from a TL 10+ world which is when grav vehicles first appear IIRC) will have the Vessel/ Grav feat and the Driving skill at Rank 0 before any levels and be able to fly a grav vehicle with any penalty for free. While in d20 Modern characters are assumed to be able to drive say a car and be able to easily learn to fly a small plane. d20 Modern characters have fewer feats than Traveller characters and they don't get Pilot at Skill Rank 0 since it is a trained skill. So it evens out enough between the two games IMO.

[Edit for some clarity hopefully ;P]

Casey