• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Another Combat Patch

What if action status was the base difficulty? and we just used size - range and speed as modifiers?

Stationary 2d
Walking 3d
Running 4d
Which is pretty much what I suggested...

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

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

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.

which boils down to +(size-range)D harder
 
I think the biggest thing I've realized in this pass is that you should never subtract dice from the difficulty. Or, alternately must increase the difficulty of the task by the maximum number of dice that can be subtracted from it.

Or, my preference, just set a floor of 2D, and make sure things are balanced reasonably well for typical use.

I don't like 5.09 giving range as difficulty and then a modifier of size - range. It's consistent with senses of course and I realize that's a big part of Marc's vision. What about losing range as the base difficulty?

I've thought of using status as difficulty, as well, and that has useful attributes.
Just as Size can be abstracted, so could Range. I strongly dislike the TSM mod. I doubt either will go away, but it's worth trying out.
 
You need to remember typical asset values and percentage chance for success.

A typical character (1) will be 7 stat 3 skill - 10
a typical gun bunny (2) will more likely be 8 stat 4 skill - 12
Arnold T Wilderbeast (3) could be 9 stat 6 skill - 15

Rolling 3D gives a 37% chance to hit for 1, 63% for 2 and 91% for 3.
Rolling 4D gives a 10% chance to hit for 1, 24% for 2 and 56% for 3.

(% are approximate but close enough)
 
Thanks Mike, and yes you're right. That's the sort of thing Marc likes to do, although he does it to extreme amounts of spreadsheety goodness. Makes me run screaming, it does.
 
The original CD's combat had a flat 2d with modifiers system. I can't recall whether it added up well or not but I do remember that people (myself included) really wanted an nd6 combat system. I'll have to dig up the CD. Maybe that's where things went off the tracks. Maybe it was okay in the first place.

Probably not though.

Mike, my concern with dumping too many stackable variables is that it tends to break the probability range.

If Marc ran 5.09 through any kind of spreadsheet I'm a monkey.
 
T500 is nD < characteristic + skill + speed + [size - range] + other mods. The "nD" is range, in dice.

There are three attack examples, and two armor/protection examples.

T509 is ... well what the heck is it? Looking for the task definition...

Ah. Melee is 2D. So is Impact (and falling).
Ranged is nD, where n=Range.


You know, I think I like the way T509 explains the target number, better than the in-your-face style of T500.
 
Mike, my concern with dumping too many stackable variables is that it tends to break the probability range.

If Marc ran 5.09 through any kind of spreadsheet I'm a monkey.
The core concept for T5 task is the characteristic plus skill target number.

The potential spread for that for typical characters and skill levels is 5-18, with the potential for a truly tricked out spec forces type having an asset of 20+

This is where the T5 combat system breaks down IMHO - you already have a huge range before considering:
aim vs snapshot
movement
target movement
target size
range
environmental conditions

You could have a separate task system for combat but I doubt that will happen.
 
And yet, that was the original thing, a 2d6 task system that didn't mesh with the rest of the task mechanics (actually, senses don't either IRRC)

Really I need to re-read 5.09 I haven't looked at it in a while. I got fed up after trying to run it too many times.

I DM 5 days a week, no joke. I don't lack players or experience. But T5, as much as I hate to admit it, is a train wreck. I want what it is trying to do so very badly.

But yes, the 2d stats ranging up to 15 with skills around 3 but ranging up to 10 setting the target number makes getting the nd6 system tricky. I still think the real problem is that we need half dice as a unit because fixed modifiers are hard on the range's flexibility which is where 5.09 tends to fall apart. While full dice are often too large relative to the number of factors being dealt with. I get that it's off the table.

It might be possible to use alternate tools like re-rolls and procedural advantages instead of modifiers, as many wargames do these days. But I'm not sure it would be accepted.
 
I'm tempted to suggest a boon/bane mechanic - each extra die equates to approximately a +/- 2 to the roll which is almost the half die.

Perhaps what T5 needs is a dice pool but you get to pick best die combination on a boon or worst on a bane.
 
Tweaks. T5.1 combat will have tweaks to T5.09 rules. I'm not sure what those tweaks will be; there are plenty of suggestions, many of which are reasonable and within the T5 task system. David's proposed some of them.

Target Size Minus Range. Here's where I think the system truly needs a tweak.

T5.09 p179 said:
The Attack system is calibrated to Targets with Size equal to Range.

This is exactly how T5.00 was calibrated, too, and that's a problem. Why? Because let's think about where a majority of combat is likely to take place: in buildings and in starships. What's the typical range? 2. Even in open areas, combat will often be close, not distant. Distant combat will be more like artillery combat. There's already rules for artillery combat; perhaps they can hold the rules for distant/sniper fire.

So, calibrate the system to Human-sized targets behind partial cover at Range 2. The CT games Snapshot and AHL exemplified this situation.

I suggest that doing it that way will smooth out the typical combat case, which is always a good thing.



OTHER THOUGHTS

Hit Location and Armor. Armor soaks, but also "ablates" by hit location. I think hit location is too fiddly. Our games simply have soak.

Knockdown is an excellent idea that appears to suffer from excessive fiddliness.

Apply Damage. Traveller standard.

Cover and Concealment. This is something Marc has liked from the start. I think I prefer cover as armor, but whatever.

Special Situations. Aimed Shots work. Apparent size is fine (crouching), as is evasion. Suppression fire is fine. I like the Tactics Mod Grant. I like the Combat Cards.
 
Last edited:
For knockdown, how about:

When appropriate weapon dame is of X dice or greater, target might be knocked down on a failed 2d6 roll versus current c2+(athlete), rolled after weapon damage is applied.

Where X is some number of die of damage that Marc and the Illuminati (a New Wave Band, clearly) think is appropriate. Then weapons that do a large number of die of damage, whether or not they they actually harm the character, can knock down a target by concussive force alone and it is quickly resolved.
 
Range Minus Target Size is tricky because it was originally in points and got converted to dice, which is why it just doesn't work. Size 5 at range 1. This is something that actually improved in 5.09 with it becoming a modifier, except difficulty is based on range and thus range double dips and becomes a problem. Size 5 at range 1 is now +4 on 1d. Average shooter needs 14 or less on 1d to hit. Even snap fire at +1d can't miss.

Does anyone else find difficulty -d and modier +n confusing? I sure do. What's good what's bad? Who knows at this point.

Again, I think the most important thing is to limit the ways difficulty can go down by setting the base line accordingly.

So, aimed fire is the base line, snap fire is difficulty +1. Not snap fire is the base line and aimed fire is +1 difficulty.

Because ideally, there should be some point in rolling the dice some of the time.

At this moment I'm thinking size-range should be a modifier not a difficulty level, at least if we're working with T5 benchmarks. As dice it becomes too big. Whither the difficulty level? I think we're hearing some agreement that attacker status is probably the best place to go with it.
 
Greg Lee's Fast Combat Mechanic for T5

As a side note, here's Greg Lee's "Fast Combat Mechanic for T5", which he told me about in the latter part of 2016.

A Fast Combat Mechanic for T5

Traveller5 seeks to consider all of the possible weapons and damage types found in any good space opera. Thus, the primary combat rules appear complicated, even to some unduly complicated. A referee need not, however, find these rules daunting. Instead, especially for role-play situations, the referee can and should use a faster, streamlined approach to the rules.

One. Roll Initiative.

The Initiative is determined either by reasonable common sense (arbitrary determination by referee), determining tactical skill levels among the leaders of each faction or group, or as a task rolled by one member of each group: to take initiative (Int + Tactics). The group whose success is achieved with a larger gap between the target number and the actual role obtains initiative. The task may be considered an “easy” task for simplicity of rolling, but the referee has discretion to make the task more difficult for one or both groups depending on the referee’s view of positioning, topography, elephant-like tramping through the underbrush, and other factors.

Two. Rolls to hit.

The T5 Task mechanic applies as written. Several play aids are available which automate the process of calculating the “to hit” task number. Rather than poring over rules to determine the effect of cover or other factors, the referee uses discretion in setting target size or altering difficulty levels. For example, a character ducking behind a partial concrete shield is a smaller target (e.g., size 3 instead of 5), but the exposed body part is the target “hit.”

Three. Hit location – Ignore It.

Except for aimed shots in which the player specifies that he or she is attempting to hit a particular part of the target’s body or structure, the referee ignores hit location. The referee and players generally assume that the character shooting aims for the main body mass, the big target (e.g., the chest in most bipeds). This is consistent with a reasonable police and military practice; the object is always to quickly and efficiently disable an opponent.

Four. Penetration and Armor Damage.

Roll all forms of damage using separate dice (usually multicolored).

Penetration rolls damage armor on a 1-to-1 correspondence. This differs from the mechanic in the 5.09 rules (which use double penetration) because the referee is assuming somewhat dispersed rapid fire (again, firing on the main mass, thus also well protected). Thus, more penetration points are needed to significantly degrade armor so that shots will eventually cause injury to the person within the armor. If and only if the player is asserting carefully aimed targeting, the referee may apply the more standard mechanic – to the specific body part armored.

Penetration is subtracted only from the armor value in itself, not other forms of protection. This is the COARN rule (a MOARN corollary) – CALCULATE only as really necessary. Yes, that is a coarny joke. Penetration effects on other protection (radiation, em cage, etc.) are not calculated during combat unless CLEARLY essential (e.g., a shock gun is in use).

Fire, cold, EM radiation, sound and other effects are dispersed over the armor, so less-than-full penetration does not allow these effects through unless the roll would by itself overwhelm the protection. Thus, the referee performs no other penetration math in the heat of battle. For simplicity, it is assumed that the layers of protection are beneath the primary armor. As always, the referee may make exceptions for what he or she views as sensible resolution of the combat.

Five. Damage.

Once penetration is achieved, ALL EFFECTS can reach the target individual. This is rational; armor value is almost always higher than penetration.

Injuries to the target individual are calculated using all effects which can reach the individual. Once again, unless the circumstance mandates application of damage to a specific body part, general injury is assumed. An enemy with “0” points left due to a leg being shot off is as disabled as an enemy disabled by abdominal wounds.

Player characters can determine injury locations after combat. The referee can also use common sense – a character hiding behind a crate, with only his or her pilot-seat-contact-point in the line of fire, clearly has an injury to his or her posterior. A person hit when sticking his or her head over the crate may have to accept that it is time to roll a new character.
 
I really don't know where people are finding players who will put up with that much arbitrary referee makes it up structure. I've never seen it in 37 years of GMing.


There's a lot that's not particularly clear in the text, such as the term "penetration." Is that damage in excess of armor? Is it all types of damage or only penetrate class damage as the mention of it counting double suggests.

Anyhow, unclear and arbitrary aren't directions the combat system needs to move in.
 
Last edited:
Oh absolutely. But since we were posting everything, I thought that would be useful from his perspective.
 
I think I may have a patch for the damage allocation roll. The problem as it stands is that you have to roll for each die individually which is slow and inefficient.

However, suppose that the dice that get through the armor are used to figure out which attribute they hit rather than how much damage is taken.

So, you pick up the penetrating ones and twos and roll them to see how much damage is taken to Strength, then the threes and fours are picked up and rolled to see how much damage is taken to Dexterity, then the fives and sixes are rolled to find out how much damage is taken to Endurance.

What it gets rid of is the need to roll a separate die for each die to figure out where the damage goes, you can just pick up the dice and re-roll them and then apply them to the right stat with ease.

There's still the question of which dice are applied to armor first as it still matters but not quite as much as any penetrating die results in a die of damage.

Thoughts?
 
You might consider adjusting your range to hit by size.

So it may always be hard to hit a hummingbird-sized target even up close, an elephant-sized target is short when at medium and medium when at large, etc.

I'll also offer up my hit location paradigm from CT/Striker-

3D for head
2D for chest/thigh
1D for limbs.

Other damage is an add-on from the nature and the power of the weapon.
 
So, you pick up the penetrating ones and twos and roll them to see how much damage is taken to Strength, then the threes and fours are picked up and rolled to see how much damage is taken to Dexterity, then the fives and sixes are rolled to find out how much damage is taken to Endurance.

I think that's clever.

The issue indeed is how damage is set against armor. I mention that in my own combat revision: if you want armor to soak as much as possible, then soak the largest numbers first.
 
In my set up it would only make sense to put the largest numbers first as the amount of damage done by each die is one die.

I came to the notion while trying to explain the dice of dice interpretation of 5.0's damage rule where each point penetrating armor becomes a full die of damage.
 
Back
Top