Melee Combat

[robject]

Melee Combat - it looks like the closest fit I've seen so far to the T5 rolls is to treat this as an opposed task. Assuming opposed tasks is reasonably straightforward, not too stupid, gives everyone leeway to adjust and twiddle as needed, but happens to work okay, then that's that.

Perhaps several of those conditions fail.

Opposed Tasks
Characters in direct competition may jointly participate in an Opposed task, with the result determining who succeeds (and who fails). Each participant rolls to resolve the task, with the lowest result succeeding.

The Task Comment will say Opposed indicating how many characters may participate (n equals the numbers of characters). The lowest result is successful, provided that result is a success result; all other participants fail (regardless of the quality of their results).

To win a race.
Difficult (3D) < Str + Athletic
Opposed. Resolves the race in one task.

A more extended resolution of a race determines the loser of a specific round. The highest result (provided that result is unsuccessful) is the loser and is eliminated from the brawl. If no one is unsuccessful, repeat the task.

To resolve one round (or lap) of a competition.
Difficult (3D) < Str + Athletic
Opposed. Resolves one round of the competition.

 

[David Johansen]

But it's not.

Really, making it flux instead of 2d is probably the easiest fix.

Attacker's Skill + Stat - Defender's Skill + Stat as it currently stands gives us a target number of 0 all too often.

 

[robject]

I really think it's better represented as an opposed task.

Why? Because we have a mechanic for opposed tasks already, and it doesn't break if two characters are matched.

 

[mike wightman]

What happened to the working party fixing combat?

 

[OjnoTheRed]

This was my draft in-house system for melee based roughly on the same idea of opposed rolls. In relation to blade weapons and 'cuts' damage from bleeding, the idea here would be successful blade attacks only count if they actually do any significant damage; a 'miss' could include an attack that actually makes contact but only leaves a minor scratch or a tear in clothing.

I've tested this, and admit the most frustrating thing is repeated rounds of opposing sides both being successful:

Melee Combat
A brawl is any fighting with natural or blade weapons at Range=R or Range=T or Range=1 (with a weapon that has Range=1) and at least one participant chooses these weapons. No-one outside a brawl at Range=R or Range=T may target participants with shooting for fear of hitting their own side.

Only Pistols and Revolvers ("handguns") are allowed as firearms in a brawl. Anyone wielding a handgun must still make a successful "natural weapons" roll (below) and then a separate attack using the handgun. This represents successfully bringing the weapon to bear before firing. Other long weapons may be used as a club.

All participants the task relevant to them:

To win a round of brawling combat with natural weapons:
Average (2D) < Str + Fighting + Unarmed (opposed)
Note: Beasts using natural weapons treat Unarmed as optional but absent as a skill.

To win a round of brawling combat with blade weapons:
Average (2D) < Str + Fighting + Blades (opposed)

The loser of a round is the highest unsuccessful roll. All successful attacks from the opposing side may now apply penetration and damage depending on weapon type against this loser of the round.

If all participants are successful, the round was spent in a desperate struggle of attacking, dodging and parrying and no-one manages to land a blow. The key exception is that anyone successfully rolling a 'natural weapons' roll to bring a handgun to bear now gets to attempt an attack with the handgun. If all participants are unsuccessful, then blows went wide and no-one was really threatened.

Note that due to the TIH! rule, many participants may be rolling +1D difficulty.

A person with C+S=12 (e.g. Str=9, Fighting-1, Unarmed-2) will have certain success. With a modicum of skill and above average strength will certainly land a blow in combat; the only thing preventing them is the other person parrying the blow or dodging. Thus some brawls will result in several rounds of struggle to injure the opponent without success.

Lastly, we re-introduce the Classic Traveller rule that you are limited to a number of rounds in brawling by Endurance (this means Vigor or Stamina does worse or better in brawling). After this you make weakened blows until you rest for at least 30 minutes. A weakened blow is an accumulating Mod of -1 per round in a brawl until you rest: a Mod of -1 for the first, a Mod of -2 for the second, -3 for the third and so on. Thus, two duelling characters with C+S=12 will succumb to tiredness after a time.

This system is consistent with existing rules and tables. But there will be some niggles.

More detail could be added in future supplements, e.g. the effect of terrain on brawling tactically (e.g. swordsmen pushing up or down stairs, pushing opponents of cliff faces etc), the use of improvised weapons (pool cues!), martial arts and exotic weapons, grappling attacks, etc.

 

[pendragonman]

Issue:

Someone using longarms can certainly use them in close combat---see "but stroke"

Longarms with bayonets are certainly able to be used in close combat, just like spears or pikes.

No obvious caveat for these two situations is mentioned above.

 

[robject]

Yes. In a general sense, it SEEMS to me that any blunt instrument is a kind of club, and things with blades strapped to them are sort of like pole-arms.

The tricky thing in melee combat is the variety of weapons. Some things aren't just clubs, blades, swords, and pole arms. There are lassos, nets, spiked balls swung from chains, all manner of improvised weapons... ladders (used by Jackie Chan in First Strike)... thrown things...



The opposed task could be highly frustrating if two opponents just can't miss. So perhaps degree of success or, even simpler, lowest success roll, determines who wins versus who takes a hit, and so someone takes damage every round.

This sort of abstraction, where a round is defined by "who gets wounded", is less simulationist, but is finite and deterministic.

 

[Timerover51]

Given the very large number of melee combat systems that already exist, why is it worth inventing a new one?

 

[robject]

That's sort of my point, although it goes like this: since Traveller5 ALREADY HAS a rule for melee combat - to wit, Opposed Tasks - there's no need to invent a new one.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Issue:

Someone using longarms can certainly use them in close combat---see "but stroke"

Longarms with bayonets are certainly able to be used in close combat, just like spears or pikes.

No obvious caveat for these two situations is mentioned above.

Yes, agreed; now you say it, that's an obvious thing missing from what I've written. And at R=1, there's absolutely no reason why a rifle can't be used for it's regular ranged attack.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Yes. In a general sense, it SEEMS to me that any blunt instrument is a kind of club, and things with blades strapped to them are sort of like pole-arms.

The tricky thing in melee combat is the variety of weapons. Some things aren't just clubs, blades, swords, and pole arms. There are lassos, nets, spiked balls swung from chains, all manner of improvised weapons... ladders (used by Jackie Chan in First Strike)... thrown things...



The opposed task could be highly frustrating if two opponents just can't miss. So perhaps degree of success or, even simpler, lowest success roll, determines who wins versus who takes a hit, and so someone takes damage every round.

This sort of abstraction, where a round is defined by "who gets wounded", is less simulationist, but is finite and deterministic.

Yes, I think playability becomes more important here than simulation. Lowest successful roll wins the round, so the only rounds where 'nothing happens' is where everyone fails, or both successful rolls are a tie after all DMs are applied (unlikely but this would make it kind of fun). Whether 15 seconds or 1 minute combat rounds are being used, a melee over that time is an abstraction given how quickly blows land in real life.

To simulate lassos and nets, we just note they have a purpose of restraint rather than damage, and so winning the round with some of these weapons successfully restrains the target. This gives us a general rule for ThingMaker: Thing X achieves Y if the equipped melee combatant is successful in a combat round using Thing X as their weapon. This can be extended to some improvised weapons used for purposes other than damage. Otherwise the good old CT rule of "as dagger", "as club" covers most territory; I'm prepared to accept a handful of heavy rope is pretty much treated "as club" to keep it simple even though we'd a lead pipe would be a better club. I'm sure there's a whole supplement waiting to be written to add ArticulatedMeleeWeaponMaker that covers nunchucks, morning stars, bolas and the like.

Again, we can extend natural weapons, improvised weapons or blade weapons into this general purpose for shifting, pushing (e.g. over a precipice) and restraining; winning the round successfully means the purpose the character wants happens. This would all be governed by the relevant skill of the weapon employed (e.g. Unarmed for restraint with bare hands). The existing rules around co-operative tasks can be used to.

I think thrown weapons are a gap in the rules but not unbridgeable; it's a ranged attack based on Strength plus Fighting plus Knowledge relevant to the weapon, max Range R=2 or R=3 (just make a decision that we can all live with) seems alike a straightforward solution to me, damage based on Strength of thrower as with other melee weapons. Throwing a rock? "as club" again but thrown.

On a re-read of the rules, it seems Fighter is divided into several Knowledges covering classes of weapons: Unarmed, Blades and then the various guns. Is it in the spirit of the rules to distinguish between Blades and Polearms as different knowledges, and should we worry about where Clubs fit into this, or just take "Blades" knowledge as meaning "fighting with anything in your hand which may or may not have an edge".

 

[pendragonman]

I need a clarification.

Lowest success. Is that the lowest die roll or the most under the target number?

Ex: Frank and Bill have a beef. Being who they are, they resolve their beef by fisticuffs.

Frank's C+S is 10, Bill's is 12. Both roll and succeed.

Frank rolls a 5, so is 5 under his target number.

Bill rolls a 6, so is 6 under his target number.

Note it is not improbable for these rolls to occur, nor is it unlikely for two combatants to have target numbers outlined above.

Frank's roll is the lowest, but Bill is the most under his target number.

So who wins the round?

The lowest actual die roll is an event solely of luck and ignores the skill and physique of the opponents (other than the target number) , the most under the target number brings in the difference in skills and stats with the luck. Higher skill and a more athletic build doesn't just mean more likely to have a successful roll, but should also encompass more likely to block/dodge the potential success of the less skilled/less athletic.

This still does not stop the little guy from winning a round or two:

Round two:

Frank rolls a 7, succeeds by 3. Bill rolls a 10, succeeds by 2.

So, which is it? Strictly lowest die roll or most under target number?

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I like your logic, pendragonman, but I have a concern: "how far under the target number" isn't a mechanic that exists in the T5.09 rules. That is, we are adding an exceptional mechanic for this situation.

In contrast, Mongoose Traveller / Cepheus Engine / Traveller SRD all have "effect" built into the 2D task roll: the amount by which you exceed or roll beneath the target number after DMs.

This means we have a choice: add a "degree of success" mechanic beyond the "spectacular" or "not spectacular" mechanic; add this as a special mechanic for Melee Combat; or use the task system as it stands.

With the C+S numbers you have in the example, I am comfortable with a degree of randomness affecting the result, hand-waving it as a 'fog of war' or 'any given Sunday' effect. Characters with C+S at either extreme will find themselves definitely more or likely to land or dodge a blow as you describe. In The Traveller Adventure (T5) I'm running, one PC has Str of 3 and no Fighting skills at all (the ship's Medic) and the other has Str of 13 (a non-human) and C+S of 15 in Melee combat. The Medic hid under a table in the last bar brawl after trying to land a blows at 3D < 3 using the above system (+1D applied for TIH! rule). Of course, had she succeeded, it would have been a Spectacular Success ironically because the TIH! rule was applied.

For the sake of playability and not adding further mechanics, despite your good argument about degrees of success based on C+S, I come down in favour of lowest successful dice roll.

 

[Daddicus]

I like your logic, pendragonman, but I have a concern: "how far under the target number" isn't a mechanic that exists in the T5.09 rules.

Actually, it does exist: character getting wounded or a medal during chargen.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Actually, it does exist: character getting wounded or a medal during chargen.

That does change our choice slightly: do we want to generalise from that mechanic into the Task system to come up with finer degrees of success?

 

[pendragonman]

I don't think it necessary. Comparing amount of success should take care of things, especially when there is the spectacular success of snake eyes.

Also, lets look at another example:

Medic with a C+S of 5 AND the extra die for TIH! rolls a 4.

Gunny Marine with a C+S of 15 rolls a 5.

The Gunny makes it by 10, the Medic just makes it by 1: but the Medic wins because they actually rolled lower? Does that make sense?

Never mind the fact that medic's shouldn't pick fights with gunnery sergeants, drunks will be drunks.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

It's one result in the context of a wider number of combat rounds: the Gunny has a 97% if natural 12 always fails. The Medic has a 5% chance of success. So the Medic does 2D (=Str dice) in hits damage in one lucky round. But, of course, the Gunny has a great C + S partly because his or her characteristic stats are good, and is not likely to knock him or her unconscious when each die is applied to a separate characteristic. Next round both combatants go at it with 97% chance of success for the Gunny and 5% chance for the Medic. Again. While randomness means the occasional lucky blow, over time the results make sense. I think the odd weird result livens up the game!

 

[pendragonman]

I would still like to know which way was/is meant.

 

[CalicoPaladin]

I'm fairly new to Traveller (just joined my first Traveller5 campaign about a year ago), but if I could offer somewhat of a newbie player's perspective on the discussion I would have to say that Pendragonman's idea makes the most sense to me. It seems to most effectively reflect the impact that skill and physical prowess should have on melee combat.

If I understand Ojnothered's idea correctly, there would be no point in having a C+S>12. If both combatants have C+S of 12 or higher then the combat would come down entirely to the luck of the dice. In my experience, at least in terms of player characters, it's pretty easy to get to C+S=12, and combat/military-focused characters can usually get it much higher.

To offer an example similar to the Gunny vs. Medic one, let's say you have:

Chuck Norris: Str C, Fighter 8, Unarmed 2, = 22
vs.
Street Thug: Str A, Fighter 2 = 12

Chuck Norris's C+S is a full 10 points higher than the Thug's, yet a dust up between the two would come down entirely to luck of the dice in Ojnothered's interpretation. Meanwhile, Pendragonman's idea would pretty much guarantee Chuck Norris's victory, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Chuck Norris: Str C, Fighter 8, Unarmed 2, = 22
vs.
Street Thug: Str A, Fighter 2 = 12

Chuck Norris's C+S is a full 10 points higher than the Thug's, yet a dust up between the two would come down entirely to luck of the dice in Ojnothered's interpretation. Meanwhile, Pendragonman's idea would pretty much guarantee Chuck Norris's victory, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

You are right - C+S>12 as a Melee number would be pointless in my schema and I was arguing that for the sake of playability we put up with some odd results and some limits such as this.

But, gee, that's a good counter-example; even though Fighter-8 would be unusual (Chuck Norris is unusual!), those characters would be out there and a champion fighter should beat a street thug nearly every time. That 'lucky weird' result should be more like 1 in 10,000 than 1 in 36.

That's something to think about.