Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Traveller 5 (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Another Combat Patch (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=38411)

David Johansen October 28th, 2017 11:49 PM

Another Combat Patch
 
Okay, here's a shot at a rework that uses much of the current data the goal would be a clear and simple game that maps well to Classic Traveller.

Surprise By Sensors: Sensors vs ECM alternately Stealth vs Recon
Initiative By Side: Tactics vs Tactics Defender 2d Attacker 3d, +1d for Surprise
Individual Initiative: Dexterity 2d + 1d for Surprise (in sequence with initiative by side)

Melee Attack: 2d <=Strength or Dexterity + Attacker Weapon or Brawling - Target Weapon or Brawling

Brawling Damage = Attacker's Racial Strength Dice - Target Strength

Melee Weapon Damage = Attacker's Racial Strength Dice

Missile Attack: 6d - Target Size d + Higher Speed d <= Dexterity + Weapon Skill
Concealment +1d, Cover +1d, Aimed Shot -1d (no move, one shot), +1d per Range Band off Effective Range

Rapid Fire 1d Group Hits within Close
Very Rapid Fire 2d Group Hits Within Short

robject October 30th, 2017 09:43 AM

In general I like the way you only deal in whole dice rather than DMs.

I really like your initiative rolls.

My Melee Combat suggestion is to make it an opposed task; best success applies damage to the other. [edited]

My Ranged Combat suggestion sets the base difficulty = 3D, with increased range adding dice, and other various affects adding or subtracting dice (aimed fire, cover, drawing, target speed).

I add 1D for smaller-than-human targets, and subtract 1D for larger-than-human targets. No need to think about Size.

I keep weapon Burden as a plain DM. That's the exception to the rules. It's also a "Special Consideration" as are a lot of the other modifiers...

Ulsyus October 30th, 2017 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robject (Post 576263)
My Melee Combat suggestion is to make it an opposed task; highest success winning.

Would you make it lowest roll, considering how difficulty adds dice and players are normally looking for the lowest possible roll to come in under the Char+Skill+Mods?

pendragonman October 30th, 2017 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulsyus (Post 576267)
Would you make it lowest roll, considering how difficulty adds dice and players are normally looking for the lowest possible roll to come in under the Char+Skill+Mods?

And "winning" being defined as to who gets to apply damage, not that the combat is over.

robject October 30th, 2017 01:10 PM

Edited!

David Johansen November 2nd, 2017 02:06 AM

Modifier stacking is a big mess in the current 5.09 version. The big problem is the core concept of size - Range. The five points for a human sized target is a big number for a 2d6 roll and 5 dice is lots of dice. Also, in the current system range is double dipped as a difficulty in dice and a modifier.

Things the system needs to include like cover, covering fire / suppression, all become problems as whole dice. But I just can't help but feel the 5.09 system is fiddly and often broken numerically.

+ Size - Range in dice gives too wide of a range when a target number of 10 is fairly average.

So what's to be done. 2d base in a system where a combatant could have a target number of 18 or even more?

Long lists of conditional modifiers like we have in 5.09?

What if Size were only +/- 1d?

So:
-1d size > range
+1d size < range

Let's make difficulty = range + speed because it's simple. Concealment and prone could be -1 Size. I'm a big fan of cover as armor when you're using hit locations. It just works well and makes sense. But if we want to keep cover and make hit locations optional I'd suggest +2d for +1d to your own attacks with a stipulation that speed is completely incompatible with cover.

Automatic fire is tricky but I like extra attack rolls better than more dice as we need to rein in the numerical spread. Just give rf three attack rolls on a close group and vrf six on a group within short range. Semiautomatic attacks can get 2 attacks. A single aimed attack would give -1d to hit.

Lastly all damage should be cumulative against a single defence type as shown in the Hit 1 material in gun maker. The Armor values given don't work with the weapon damages if they aren't. I've always felt there was a page of special damage effects missing that makes burn and bullet a difference with distinction.

Similarly, Horns doing Pen indicates that Pen isn't great at armor penetration but rather speaks to a deeper wound which would fit with pen generally being listed after bullet and cuts etc. Bullet wounds should bleed too, cuts are ridiculously deadly in 5.0.

So why not burn doesn't bleed, cut bleeds 2, bullet bleeds 1, pen bleeds 3?

robject November 4th, 2017 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johansen (Post 576403)
Modifier stacking is a big mess in the current 5.09 version. The big problem is the core concept of size - Range. The five points for a human sized target is a big number for a 2d6 roll and 5 dice is lots of dice. Also, in the current system range is double dipped as a difficulty in dice and a modifier.

You know, this was the case in .00 as well.

Your suggestions are worth considering. I don't know how many variations of the combat system I've tried out.

I went so far as making the typical roll 3D.

David Johansen November 5th, 2017 12:07 PM

5.0 is not without its warts, it's just that 5.09 is worse.

Always converting 3 points of modifiers to 1d fixes many of my issues with the current version. But it's one more cludgy step in a pretty cludgy system.

An ideally clean version would be:

tactics contest for initiative
nd to hit
nd for damage
subtract armor
distribute damage to stats.

It's hard to make that work with the current factors and numbers.

One side thought, stealth and sensors and such should actually be setting encounter range. The fight starts when you spot the enemy.

mike wightman November 5th, 2017 01:12 PM

I am intrigued by the range and target size base.

Hitting a size 1 at range 1 - easy enough on the range.
hitting size 1 at range 2 - 1D harder
hitting size 2 at range 2 - easy
etc.
weapon length determines base range
sights extend base range...

target movement should make it more difficult - +1D if target running, +2D if target evading
your movement should make it harder - moving +1D, running +2D, evading +3D

robject November 6th, 2017 11:51 AM

David, I think I agree with all your points there.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.