Combat Issue and Possible Solution

[David Johansen]

So I ran a pickup game on Tuesday and there was a firefight in a starport lounge. Much of the shooting was done at range 1 Close.

So 1d to hit +5 for size -1 for range, even with a -6 for cover and -1 for evasion -3 on only 1d gives us a lot of automatic hits. If you figure an average combatant has 7 Dex and Slug Throwers-2 they can't miss.

From where I sit this is highly problematic and really disappointing given everything it took to get here.

I think the attack roll at close range needs to be harder. +4 for target size is also too good as it stands. At the simplest the difficulty needs to be range +1d.

Any thoughts?

 

[pendragonman]

So I ran a pickup game on Tuesday and there was a firefight in a starport lounge. Much of the shooting was done at range 1 Close.

So 1d to hit +5 for size -1 for range, even with a -6 for cover and -1 for evasion -3 on only 1d gives us a lot of automatic hits. If you figure an average combatant has 7 Dex and Slug Throwers-2 they can't miss.

From where I sit this is highly problematic and really disappointing given everything it took to get here.

I think the attack roll at close range needs to be harder. +4 for target size is also too good as it stands. At the simplest the difficulty needs to be range +1d.

Any thoughts?

Is this an application of the 5.09 rules?

 

[robject]

Not sure if it's in the 5.09 rules, but we never roll fewer than 2D for combat actions.

 

[mike wightman]

An evading target should raise the difficulty, not just get a -1DM.

Similarly are you standing still and taking aim or making a snapshot while taking advantage of your own cover or movement? If the latter raise the difficulty by 1, if the former remember you are a much easier target to hit.

By the time you are rolling 3d then combat is close to the odds it should have.

Combat is badly broken and in need of a radical overhaul. Combat is after all one of the key resolution mechanics of any role playing game.

If I was designing it I would start with what the odds are of hitting in various situations, and work backwards to decide on the applicable DMs or difficulty modifiers. Playtest to iron out the bugs and then get it into the next version asap.

 

[robject]

Well, we do know the base odds of inflicting damage when shooting someone: 8+ on 2D

With a little skill, that changes to 7+.

With an advantageous dexterity, that could change to 6+.

 

[David Johansen]

Yes, 5.09 which is, quite frankly, less clear and less functional than 5.0 which is quite a feat.

1d with a +4? Yes if you're running it's -2. If you're under cover it's a -6. Can you be running and in cover? Also, contesting initiative becomes the roll to win combat because all other things being equal, if one side fires first the other side will have significantly less ability to return fire. The only disadvantage seems to be revealing positions.

 

[mike wightman]

Well, we do know the base odds of inflicting damage when shooting someone: 8+ on 2D

With a little skill, that changes to 7+.

With an advantageous dexterity, that could change to 6+.

Which may work if firing at range targets, but is hopelessly wrong in combat situations. Range targets don't shoot back...

T5 combat has several key variables that should affect the difficulty of the shot - i.e. how many dice you roll:
target size
range
target movement
attacker movement

DMs would come from situational modifiers.

 

[robject]

Which may work if firing at range targets, but is hopelessly wrong in combat situations. Range targets don't shoot back...

T5 combat has several key variables that should affect the difficulty of the shot - i.e. how many dice you roll:
target size
range
target movement
attacker movement

DMs would come from situational modifiers.

Of course. I was stating the baseline, per your previous post.

Rather than use DMs, I adjust the number of dice rolled based on situation. If the situation isn't significant enough to warrant a dice adjustment, I don't worry about it. Or I negotiate with the players based on elements of the situation, if they're in a bargaining mood. But then I act like a pushover

 

[David Johansen]

Another thing that bothers me is there's really no reason to use a pistol rather than a machinegun at close quarters. Really, there are far too many rpgs where the right gun is always the biggest gun.

 

[Licheking]

don't forget that Range Close 1, is 5m (15ish feet), and over a 15 second combat round. It should be easy to hit at that range, and then who wins should come down to who fires first. Although if the person who fires first misses or doesn't put down their target they have exposed themselves to return fire so had better have some good armour.

Range determines base dice to roll, and DMs add to C+S, but things like Snap Fire add dice to the base roll making it tougher to hit.

 

[robject]

Another thing that bothers me is there's really no reason to use a pistol rather than a machinegun at close quarters. Really, there are far too many rpgs where the right gun is always the biggest gun.

In other words, guns are often designed for a certain range.

 

[David Johansen]

Exactly, but they're less effective at closer ranges. Maybe that's really what needs to be done. 2d at effective range +1 d per range band in either direction.

We've still got Size - Range making it harder to hit at long range.

 

[robject]

An interesting issue that I've never thought about. Of course the tables in Classic Traveller pre-compute all that sort of thing in two big tables for their compact list of weapons, so CT players only had to worry about that if they added variant guns to the game.

I can see ways around it -- increase difficulty if attacking at a range not intended for the gun -- but what's the best course of action here?

 

[Epee]

Machineguns work quite well inside two meters,if they are pointed at the target. It is only when it must be deployed and/or pointed that it starts to suffer in CQB. What should happen is the ability to get a shot in before others with handier weapons should suffer.

 

[David Johansen]

With group initiative and simultaneous initiative that's just part of the to hit roll.

 

[robapol]

I too have found the combat hugely disappointing. The annoying thing is that T5 taken as a whole has some pretty awesome ideas, many of which I will use with CT.

The issue that the OP pointed out is all too obvious. Many standard firefights will result in pretty much automatic hits. The system looks like the writer came up with a cool and concise formula without fully checking out the ramifications. Formula based rules are much harder to write than table based rules and I'm not sure that they are suitable for paper based gaming. I use them in the Ancient Battle simulator I'm writing and have found that as the formula get tested they become more and more complex. For a computer game this is not an issue as you can hide that stuff away, but for pen and paper it becomes more problematic.

I'm guessing the sheer elegance of having the universal task system and having it perform combat too, is what attracted Marc to use this approach. I think it can work - but it would take a lot of work to get it to work - whereas a table based system is very simple to tweak.

I agree with the one of the other posters. If you are going to create a combat system with formula, it's almost better to work backwards...

Then there are at least two other issues... (Note I only have the 5.00 book...)

1. One of the examples has a character hiding behind a wall where cover = 4. The problem is that using the standard formula it would be impossible to engage a character fighting from behind a wall at ranges > 5 mtrs. This is due to the visibility rule. For example assume the wall above is at a range of 25 mtrs, with human vs human. The Size-Range Calc becomes (5 (Target Size) - 4(wall cover)) - 2(range).
=1 - 2 = -1.... which the size-range rules state cannot be engaged as < 0
With these rules, an engagement using walls for cover can only take place at < 5 mtrs.

2. NPCs need > 10 damage to be knocked out. This implies that all pistols (max damage 6) and most rifle shots will, alas, have no effect. And this discussion doesn't even include any armour that most NPC's are likely to be wearing...

And we won't talk about fisticuffs....

So if you take the OPs close quarter battle situation, you could get to a point where you are always hitting a target, but never affecting them.

Like others before, I find it very difficult to believe that the combat system has been play-tested in one game, let alone many. The issues are all too stark and apparent.

I think for the next T5 version, the combat system should be re-written and play-tested (Important!), and there should be concrete equipment examples that at least match those from CT - this way T5 referees could easily take advantage of the rich vein of CT adventures, safe in the knowledge that they are using 'standard' designs.

For example in my version of the rules book page 630 for equipment has a statement saying that vehicles, vehicle weapons, weapons (although... there is a weapons list on page 240...), explosives and robotics have been omitted - which kind of implies they exist but for whatever reason were not included. And it has many descriptions and pictures of standard starships, but again no stats.

The other thing I would do is release supporting material like adventures and/or campaigns. This will help attract newer people to the system. It's one of the things that got me into Traveller in the early 80's - the fact that there were so many supplements and adventures all ready to be used! Without these, the system will appear quite barren to new comers and they will simply go elsewhere.

RobP

 

[David Johansen]

Combat changed a great deal between 5.0 and 5.09. Sadly not for the better.

 

[robapol]

Combat changed a great deal between 5.0 and 5.09. Sadly not for the better.

That's not encouraging news :/ Looks like my old CT books will have to carry the flag.

 

[David Johansen]

Wasn't 5.09 a free download for people who bought the book?

 

[aramis]

Wasn't 5.09 a free download for people who bought the book?

All the KS backers, yes. If you didn't get the notice, it means Marc either got a bounce or didn't have the correct email address for you. Contact him via email.