Let's talk about DAMAGE!

[mike wightman]

Why should it just be the first shot that does this though?

Any wound should have the capability to strike the CNS, major blood vessel, heart etc.

Perhaps the first blood rule takes into all of the psychological factors that make people fall down when shot...

 

[mike wightman]

Why should it just be the first shot that does this though?

Any wound should have the capability to strike the CNS, major blood vessel, heart etc.

Perhaps the first blood rule takes into all of the psychological factors that make people fall down when shot...

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jame:
This is why I would increase rifle damage by 1D, which has always been my pet peeve.

I tend to agree, but I'd rather lower handgun damage than increase that of rifles and carbines. </font>[/QUOTE]This is why we have house rules, now isn't it?

I prefer to raise rifle damage to match the power of the shotgun, and justify it by altering the range charateristics and effects (i.e. the shotgun is excellent at close range and does well against armor at this range, but the rifle is excellent at medium and better range and does well against harder armors).

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jame:
This is why I would increase rifle damage by 1D, which has always been my pet peeve.

I tend to agree, but I'd rather lower handgun damage than increase that of rifles and carbines. </font>[/QUOTE]This is why we have house rules, now isn't it?

I prefer to raise rifle damage to match the power of the shotgun, and justify it by altering the range charateristics and effects (i.e. the shotgun is excellent at close range and does well against armor at this range, but the rifle is excellent at medium and better range and does well against harder armors).

 

[mike wightman]

Do you use the armour table DMs or an armour as damage reduction system Jame?

 

[mike wightman]

Do you use the armour table DMs or an armour as damage reduction system Jame?

 

[mike wightman]

I personally quite like the rule in T4 that limits the number of damage dice a body can take from a projectile weapon to 3D - so that an ACR with a damage rating of 5D (it's a T4 TL12 ACR) would lose 2D against an unarmoured opponent.
Explosive rounds, shotguns, and energy weapons ignore this rule however.

 

[mike wightman]

I personally quite like the rule in T4 that limits the number of damage dice a body can take from a projectile weapon to 3D - so that an ACR with a damage rating of 5D (it's a T4 TL12 ACR) would lose 2D against an unarmoured opponent.
Explosive rounds, shotguns, and energy weapons ignore this rule however.

 

[ajsg]

the damage would not get lost but blasted thru to the guy behind your target.

 

[ajsg]

the damage would not get lost but blasted thru to the guy behind your target.

 

[mike wightman]

Yep, one of the few games where this sort of thing is handled easily

 

[mike wightman]

Yep, one of the few games where this sort of thing is handled easily

 

[rhoneycutt]

I always figured it was to simulate shock and screaming in pain...

more ppl should play the first-aid rules with as much diligence as they do combat.

 

[rhoneycutt]

I always figured it was to simulate shock and screaming in pain...

more ppl should play the first-aid rules with as much diligence as they do combat.

 

[mike wightman]

Now that's something I completely agree with.

Hence the wound descriptors and the bleeding rules mentioned earlier.

To which I should have added that an exceptional success wound that causes End damage also causes bleeding, even if End is somehow not reduced to 0 by the wound damage.

 

[mike wightman]

Now that's something I completely agree with.

Hence the wound descriptors and the bleeding rules mentioned earlier.

To which I should have added that an exceptional success wound that causes End damage also causes bleeding, even if End is somehow not reduced to 0 by the wound damage.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I personally quite like the rule in T4 that limits the number of damage dice a body can take from a projectile weapon to 3D - so that an ACR with a damage rating of 5D (it's a T4 TL12 ACR) would lose 2D against an unarmoured opponent.
Explosive rounds, shotguns, and energy weapons ignore this rule however.

I like that T4 rule too. I almost used it in CTI (in fact, early drafts mention the "kinetic energy" rule).

In your example, ACR 5D damage would be: Roll 5D, take the best three.

I decided to stay with CT as written, though, my rationale being that I wanted to muddle with CT as little as possible.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I personally quite like the rule in T4 that limits the number of damage dice a body can take from a projectile weapon to 3D - so that an ACR with a damage rating of 5D (it's a T4 TL12 ACR) would lose 2D against an unarmoured opponent.
Explosive rounds, shotguns, and energy weapons ignore this rule however.

I like that T4 rule too. I almost used it in CTI (in fact, early drafts mention the "kinetic energy" rule).

In your example, ACR 5D damage would be: Roll 5D, take the best three.

I decided to stay with CT as written, though, my rationale being that I wanted to muddle with CT as little as possible.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
CT+ being a project a lot of us worked up on these boards last summer.

Hmmm....

I looked at that thread. You know, I'm not so sure that's Hunter's original idea.

Take a look at this:

http://lists.travellerrpg.com/pipermail/tml2004/2004-June/011721.html

That's a thread I started on the TML back in June of 2004. Hunter was on the list at that time (I think he still is), and, well, you can check out the entire system I posted--which was all about modernizing Classic Trav.

Maybe it's a case of "great minds thinking alike", but it sure looks like my complete posting of modernization rules for CT, in a system called "CTPlus", pre-dates any mention of it Hunter may have made.

I just recently started following CotI, so I never knew the CT+ thread existed.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
CT+ being a project a lot of us worked up on these boards last summer.

Hmmm....

I looked at that thread. You know, I'm not so sure that's Hunter's original idea.

Take a look at this:

http://lists.travellerrpg.com/pipermail/tml2004/2004-June/011721.html

That's a thread I started on the TML back in June of 2004. Hunter was on the list at that time (I think he still is), and, well, you can check out the entire system I posted--which was all about modernizing Classic Trav.

Maybe it's a case of "great minds thinking alike", but it sure looks like my complete posting of modernization rules for CT, in a system called "CTPlus", pre-dates any mention of it Hunter may have made.

I just recently started following CotI, so I never knew the CT+ thread existed.