Combat system?
- Thread starter Daddicus
- Start date
But, none of those are problems with the system. They're problems with end-cases inside the system.
Reading it a bit more, it seems a little complex. Maybe a lot complex; hard to say in one thorough reading.
D&D had this problem in 1E, with piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage, coupled with armor that could handle various types of damage better than others.
In Traveller, though, things like energy damage vs. bullets makes more sense. But, perhaps a couple layers of complexity could be replaced by simpler systems? Not replaced; more like a second method, same as the first only less complex.
Axis & Allies had an unbelievably simple combat system. People kept trying to complicate it to "make it more interesting", but the original never really lost out. In a game that's only marginally historical, it was immensely popular for its genre, and I think one of the reasons was the simple combat.
???
Reading it a bit more, it seems a little complex. Maybe a lot complex; hard to say in one thorough reading.
D&D had this problem in 1E, with piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage, coupled with armor that could handle various types of damage better than others.
In Traveller, though, things like energy damage vs. bullets makes more sense. But, perhaps a couple layers of complexity could be replaced by simpler systems? Not replaced; more like a second method, same as the first only less complex.
Axis & Allies had an unbelievably simple combat system. People kept trying to complicate it to "make it more interesting", but the original never really lost out. In a game that's only marginally historical, it was immensely popular for its genre, and I think one of the reasons was the simple combat.
???
David Johansen
SOC-12
I think I'm the loudest complainer so I'll re-iterate.
Fairly Average Soldier (AS)
Stat 7 + Skill 3 = Target Number 10.
Fairly Average Super Pensioner PC (PC)
Stat 10 + Skill 5 = Target Number 15
Size 5 Human - Range 1 = +4 to hit (prone reduces size by one) (AS 14, PC 19)
Full Cover Target -6 + From Full Cover -3 = -9 (AS 5, PC10)
Or Speed 2: -2 (While the rules never really say so, let's assume you can't claim cover and run at full tilt)
Range 1: Close 1d difficulty
Range 2: Short 2d difficulty
Aimed: -1d difficulty, 1 shot if stationary (Even a poor shot can't miss at close range.)
Standard: 2 shots if stationary
Snap: +1d difficulty 3 shots if stationary
Burst: x 2 damage to a single target, less if spread
Full Auto: x 3 damage to a single target, less if spread
As per page 185 the target number for evenly matched combatants to hit in melee is 0 on 2d. Seriously you have to completely outclass your opponent to have any chance to hit at all.
Which is a good thing because horns: Pen = C1 Thus a big creature with four or five dice for strength averaging 14 or 17.5 can easily outclass antitank guns in the anti-armor role. I know there's a fix in place now but it's not in the 5.09 document.
Now, one side gets to go first, and unless the other side's armor seriously outclasses their weapons or outnumbers by an order of magnitude, there won't be another side to fire back.
I suspect these things are fixed in the working document for 5.1.
Fairly Average Soldier (AS)
Stat 7 + Skill 3 = Target Number 10.
Fairly Average Super Pensioner PC (PC)
Stat 10 + Skill 5 = Target Number 15
Size 5 Human - Range 1 = +4 to hit (prone reduces size by one) (AS 14, PC 19)
Full Cover Target -6 + From Full Cover -3 = -9 (AS 5, PC10)
Or Speed 2: -2 (While the rules never really say so, let's assume you can't claim cover and run at full tilt)
Range 1: Close 1d difficulty
Range 2: Short 2d difficulty
Aimed: -1d difficulty, 1 shot if stationary (Even a poor shot can't miss at close range.)
Standard: 2 shots if stationary
Snap: +1d difficulty 3 shots if stationary
Burst: x 2 damage to a single target, less if spread
Full Auto: x 3 damage to a single target, less if spread
As per page 185 the target number for evenly matched combatants to hit in melee is 0 on 2d. Seriously you have to completely outclass your opponent to have any chance to hit at all.
Which is a good thing because horns: Pen = C1 Thus a big creature with four or five dice for strength averaging 14 or 17.5 can easily outclass antitank guns in the anti-armor role. I know there's a fix in place now but it's not in the 5.09 document.
Now, one side gets to go first, and unless the other side's armor seriously outclasses their weapons or outnumbers by an order of magnitude, there won't be another side to fire back.
I suspect these things are fixed in the working document for 5.1.
David Johansen
SOC-12
That sounds like too much effort, I'll summarize.
Point 1 - The main issue is that it's too easy to hit. It looks like a big fat wad of data because there are so many factors that contribute to the problem. 1d to hit at close range in addition to +Size - Range in addition to -1 d for aimed fire at (making a 0d to hit task at close range).
This issue is compounded by initiative by side because if you can almost automatically hit and hit first your targets are screwed.
Point -2 Another issue is that as written it is impossible to hit in Melee unless you outclass your foe by at least two points.
Point 3 - Also blade maker is still a disaster as of 5.09 with a strength 15 giving 15d damage in many cases.
5.09 combat is actually less functional and less readable than 5.0 and that's saying something.
Point 1 - The main issue is that it's too easy to hit. It looks like a big fat wad of data because there are so many factors that contribute to the problem. 1d to hit at close range in addition to +Size - Range in addition to -1 d for aimed fire at (making a 0d to hit task at close range).
This issue is compounded by initiative by side because if you can almost automatically hit and hit first your targets are screwed.
Point -2 Another issue is that as written it is impossible to hit in Melee unless you outclass your foe by at least two points.
Point 3 - Also blade maker is still a disaster as of 5.09 with a strength 15 giving 15d damage in many cases.
5.09 combat is actually less functional and less readable than 5.0 and that's saying something.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I've got issues with the combat system, too, and I was one of the ones who worked on it. There were things we could "fix" and things we couldn't. I wasn't crazy about the direction the system, took, either, but I was only one voice among many and not necessarily the loudest.
I don't know why we weren't allowed to fix unarmed combat, but for some reason, those complaints kept getting ignored.
My biggest complaint is how many rolls are needed for combat. No Ref is going to play the combat system as written (and I think that it should be completely playable out of the box). You roll to hit. You figure penetration. You roll hit location for every die that penetrates--that's crazy.* I don't like how blades do damage each combat round, either. It doesn't fit the system. Given the "hit points" a character has, a knife would will kill most characters in less than a minute. Blades are the most dangerous "usual" weapons in the game. Forget a pistol that does 1D or even 2D damage. A sword will kill a character much more quickly.
Here's something that may help those out there trying to make heads or tails of the combat system, though. I'm not sure if this is in 5.09--it may be. I haven't looked at it in a long time. But, this may help some people, at least those trying to figure the Pen damage type.
This comes from the top--how Marc intended Pen to be played. I actually like it--it's one of his very good ideas.
For the Pen damage type, you double it when considering penetration vs. armor, but you use it as is--without doubling--when figuring damage.
I don't know why we weren't allowed to fix unarmed combat, but for some reason, those complaints kept getting ignored.
My biggest complaint is how many rolls are needed for combat. No Ref is going to play the combat system as written (and I think that it should be completely playable out of the box). You roll to hit. You figure penetration. You roll hit location for every die that penetrates--that's crazy.* I don't like how blades do damage each combat round, either. It doesn't fit the system. Given the "hit points" a character has, a knife would will kill most characters in less than a minute. Blades are the most dangerous "usual" weapons in the game. Forget a pistol that does 1D or even 2D damage. A sword will kill a character much more quickly.
Here's something that may help those out there trying to make heads or tails of the combat system, though. I'm not sure if this is in 5.09--it may be. I haven't looked at it in a long time. But, this may help some people, at least those trying to figure the Pen damage type.
This comes from the top--how Marc intended Pen to be played. I actually like it--it's one of his very good ideas.
For the Pen damage type, you double it when considering penetration vs. armor, but you use it as is--without doubling--when figuring damage.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
May I offer something I came to with the Striker system that I'm about to post?
I do away with the concept of weapons-specific damage rolls, other then adding on an HE and/or an energy hit die (and both for plasma/fusion, one could probably do something like that for all the T5 nuanced special damages/weapon types).
Instead, WHERE you hit on the human body counts.
1D is arms, hands, legs.
3D is chest, torso, thigh, spine.
5D is head.
So a dagger plunged through your skull kills as much as a rifle shot.
Pen either pens or it doesn't, if it doesn't you may still have heat/blunt force bruising/hydrostatic shock that is still delivered and so reduced damage applies (but it's not absorbed by armor per se, just not adequately deflected).
An automatic weapon kills due to each bullet doing damage, adds up fast.
You roll one die for hit location/amount of damage, if you like just rule that all autoshots hit the same location. Correlate the weapon pen with armor, adjust if needed, roll the actual damage die, done.
I may or may not also define locations as being associated with STR, DEX and/or END.
Head for instance would be DEX followed by INT/EDU hits.
What I REALLY like about it is you can have an armored chest/torso armor set but exposed arms and head, and it handles that situation. Gets imagery and personal decisions trading off coverage for mobility and encumbrance.
This system is what prompted me to come up with that QND Medical Drama post, the endgame is to merge them so I can describe what is going on with a character hit and subsequent treatment/effects without too many crazy die rolls.
I do away with the concept of weapons-specific damage rolls, other then adding on an HE and/or an energy hit die (and both for plasma/fusion, one could probably do something like that for all the T5 nuanced special damages/weapon types).
Instead, WHERE you hit on the human body counts.
1D is arms, hands, legs.
3D is chest, torso, thigh, spine.
5D is head.
So a dagger plunged through your skull kills as much as a rifle shot.
Pen either pens or it doesn't, if it doesn't you may still have heat/blunt force bruising/hydrostatic shock that is still delivered and so reduced damage applies (but it's not absorbed by armor per se, just not adequately deflected).
An automatic weapon kills due to each bullet doing damage, adds up fast.
You roll one die for hit location/amount of damage, if you like just rule that all autoshots hit the same location. Correlate the weapon pen with armor, adjust if needed, roll the actual damage die, done.
I may or may not also define locations as being associated with STR, DEX and/or END.
Head for instance would be DEX followed by INT/EDU hits.
What I REALLY like about it is you can have an armored chest/torso armor set but exposed arms and head, and it handles that situation. Gets imagery and personal decisions trading off coverage for mobility and encumbrance.
This system is what prompted me to come up with that QND Medical Drama post, the endgame is to merge them so I can describe what is going on with a character hit and subsequent treatment/effects without too many crazy die rolls.
It IS a good idea. But combat still needs to be playable, including how unarmed combat, blades, and animals are handled.
WB S4.
David Johansen
SOC-12
I do have some fixes to propose.
The first is to make the base difficulty of ranged combat 7d and subtract Size. That makes shooting a man sized target at close range 2d and 5d at long range, which is not unreasonable given that aiming is -1d and a fairly average shooter has a target number of 10.
The next is to add 8 to the target number for the 2d Melee task which would mean that equal foes would hit on 8+
Lastly, I'd like to suggest that the side that gets the initiative in the first turn loses it for the second turn. This means that after getting the *bleep* whacked out of them they get two turns of fire to make up for it. This is intended to reflect the fact that all combat is not in sequence and some folks likely go their licks in before going down.
The first is to make the base difficulty of ranged combat 7d and subtract Size. That makes shooting a man sized target at close range 2d and 5d at long range, which is not unreasonable given that aiming is -1d and a fairly average shooter has a target number of 10.
The next is to add 8 to the target number for the 2d Melee task which would mean that equal foes would hit on 8+
Lastly, I'd like to suggest that the side that gets the initiative in the first turn loses it for the second turn. This means that after getting the *bleep* whacked out of them they get two turns of fire to make up for it. This is intended to reflect the fact that all combat is not in sequence and some folks likely go their licks in before going down.
Good proposals. I have some counter questions for them.
First, I do like making target size a difficulty mod instead of a DM. In general I prefer to modify difficulty, instead of stacking on DMs. DMs are sooooo 2D.
Second, I also like removing that double-accounting of range (difficulty is range in dice, and TSM uses range as a DM).
However, [7 + Range - Size]D feels like a bulky mechanic. Can we streamline it? (Other than changing the size scale... some time ago I suggested that "Size" be organized around Human = Size 0). GRANTED for human cases, the computation is actually [Range+2]D... and I would explicitly put the "human" task roll in the personal combat rules because usually we're shooting at people.
But THEN I would look earnestly for a way to BAKE that +2D into the rules somewhere else! (WHERE?) In other words, what circumstance or difficulty mod can I use on which to hang that +2D? Because then the fundamental task becomes, FOR EXAMPLE,
AIMED FIRE: (Range)D < Characteristic + Skill
+2D for snapfire
+1D against small animals (Size 4 objects)
-1D against vehicles (Size 6 objects)
+1D if the target is evading or moving laterally
Minimum 2D.
...which may have all sorts of problems, but to me it looks positively beautiful!
Next, melee. Assuming we're using T5 tasks, the actual DM would be 6, and the roll would be 2D < 6 + skill, or something like that. A skill-only check. But that still feels inadequate. Bumping difficulty up to 3D or 4D might help (the extra 2D gets you an average DM of +7), but something feels off.
Finally initiative. Your suggestion is simple: the two sides trade initiative each turn. Fine by me.
First, I do like making target size a difficulty mod instead of a DM. In general I prefer to modify difficulty, instead of stacking on DMs. DMs are sooooo 2D.
Second, I also like removing that double-accounting of range (difficulty is range in dice, and TSM uses range as a DM).
However, [7 + Range - Size]D feels like a bulky mechanic. Can we streamline it? (Other than changing the size scale... some time ago I suggested that "Size" be organized around Human = Size 0). GRANTED for human cases, the computation is actually [Range+2]D... and I would explicitly put the "human" task roll in the personal combat rules because usually we're shooting at people.
But THEN I would look earnestly for a way to BAKE that +2D into the rules somewhere else! (WHERE?) In other words, what circumstance or difficulty mod can I use on which to hang that +2D? Because then the fundamental task becomes, FOR EXAMPLE,
AIMED FIRE: (Range)D < Characteristic + Skill
+2D for snapfire
+1D against small animals (Size 4 objects)
-1D against vehicles (Size 6 objects)
+1D if the target is evading or moving laterally
Minimum 2D.
...which may have all sorts of problems, but to me it looks positively beautiful!
Next, melee. Assuming we're using T5 tasks, the actual DM would be 6, and the roll would be 2D < 6 + skill, or something like that. A skill-only check. But that still feels inadequate. Bumping difficulty up to 3D or 4D might help (the extra 2D gets you an average DM of +7), but something feels off.
Finally initiative. Your suggestion is simple: the two sides trade initiative each turn. Fine by me.
Last edited:
David Johansen
SOC-12
The problem with melee is that it's Attacker's Skill + Stat - (Target's Skill + Stat) so it averages out at 0. The +8 makes it less likely to hit that +7 or +6 if you graph 2d you'll see that 7 is right in the middle. I just felt that evenly matched foes should have a little harder time hitting each other and 8+ has a place in Traveller lore so I went with it.
The initiative swap is a little rough but it helps to balance out initiative by the side. I played way too many Warhammer 40000 third edition games where my poor Imperial Guard were all but annihilated in the first turn before I could even fire a shot.
I think it's easiest to say Shooting 2d + Range.
Aimed Fire -1 d 1 Shot
Snap Fire -1 d 3 Shots
+ Target Size
-2 to 6 Target Cover
-1 to 3 Attacker Cover
- Speed if no cover
- 2 evading if no cover
Okay, actually, I think evasion, movement, and cover desperately need to have their relationship described. To my mind, either you can't evade in cover or that's why there's a -1 to -3 penalty to your own shots. In which case, evasion in the open should give a -3 both to hit and to be hit.
That would mean cover would be a flat -1 to -3 for cover quality plus evasion.
-1 Concealment (automatic penetration)
-2 Soft Cover (potential penetration)
-3 Hard Cover (no chance of penetration)
The initiative swap is a little rough but it helps to balance out initiative by the side. I played way too many Warhammer 40000 third edition games where my poor Imperial Guard were all but annihilated in the first turn before I could even fire a shot.
I think it's easiest to say Shooting 2d + Range.
Aimed Fire -1 d 1 Shot
Snap Fire -1 d 3 Shots
+ Target Size
-2 to 6 Target Cover
-1 to 3 Attacker Cover
- Speed if no cover
- 2 evading if no cover
Okay, actually, I think evasion, movement, and cover desperately need to have their relationship described. To my mind, either you can't evade in cover or that's why there's a -1 to -3 penalty to your own shots. In which case, evasion in the open should give a -3 both to hit and to be hit.
That would mean cover would be a flat -1 to -3 for cover quality plus evasion.
-1 Concealment (automatic penetration)
-2 Soft Cover (potential penetration)
-3 Hard Cover (no chance of penetration)
I think organizing the text will help (I sent Marc a full page of "organizational errata"). And yes, stand/move/evade/cover need to be understood as exclusive choices each turn. Or something. And thus the benefits and advantages of each are known.
Melee 8+
OK, I understand your rationale.
STANCE
While we're on that, I had also sent two full pages of "suggestion errata" on combat. The major suggestion was to clearly show the choice a player has to make in his turn, between aimed fire (and I think I suggested going back to T500 for that one), snapfire, evade, take cover, and operating a vehicle.
I'm not sure if "operating a vehicle" qualifies as its own category, but I suggested it anyway. It's certainly hard to do anything else when driving. Texting?
"Evade" would have room for a minor action.
"Take cover" would leave room for doing something else, like fire suppression, or first aid.
COVER DMs
Even though Marc seems to like DMs, I prefer to replace them wholesale with task difficulty modifiers. This would (presumably) force the game designer (Marc) to decide what's important, and what's not.
In other words, remove everything that's not important enough. I suppose two draft texts plus every previous Traveller combat system provides plenty of fodder for deciding what's important and what's not.
Melee 8+
OK, I understand your rationale.
STANCE
While we're on that, I had also sent two full pages of "suggestion errata" on combat. The major suggestion was to clearly show the choice a player has to make in his turn, between aimed fire (and I think I suggested going back to T500 for that one), snapfire, evade, take cover, and operating a vehicle.
I'm not sure if "operating a vehicle" qualifies as its own category, but I suggested it anyway. It's certainly hard to do anything else when driving. Texting?
"Evade" would have room for a minor action.
"Take cover" would leave room for doing something else, like fire suppression, or first aid.
COVER DMs
Even though Marc seems to like DMs, I prefer to replace them wholesale with task difficulty modifiers. This would (presumably) force the game designer (Marc) to decide what's important, and what's not.
In other words, remove everything that's not important enough. I suppose two draft texts plus every previous Traveller combat system provides plenty of fodder for deciding what's important and what's not.
Last edited:
From an article I read (hardly an authoritative statement I know), it seems like "newer" games are very technical and designed for rules lawyers, while "older" games (like, really old) expected people to be creative and enjoy the evening gaming. This is a simplification, but still.
The result is, I came away from that article wanting T5 combat to be simple enough to understand. But I want to make it less about rules-lawyering and more about enjoying the game. I'm not entirely sure what that means for the rules except that they ought to allow modifications but maybe not specify exactly what those mods are at all times.
Of course combat is one of the riskiest parts of the game, so players need to know how risky each decision is.
The result is, I came away from that article wanting T5 combat to be simple enough to understand. But I want to make it less about rules-lawyering and more about enjoying the game. I'm not entirely sure what that means for the rules except that they ought to allow modifications but maybe not specify exactly what those mods are at all times.
Of course combat is one of the riskiest parts of the game, so players need to know how risky each decision is.
"Second method" - I like the idea.
This is a good idea, one that I thought was almost there in earlier drafts of T5.
T5 has a lot of sections where the rules describe the highpoints and the Referee and Players are supposed to use their imagination to fill in the detail or to understand the detail of what the rules are describing in abstract.
A simple abstract combat system which is fast and allows the roleplaying to proceed and a second layer of detailed combat for those times when the PC is a sniper and has to match his skill to hitting a moving target in a crosswind on a .65G world would be nice.
Can you recall particulars that caught your eye?
