• 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.

Streamlined Megatraveller Combat

So I just finished my intro to Traveller game for my group. We're using MT. I love the task system and everything went famously until the shooting started.

I love what they did with the combat rules. However, they are not as playable as they seem to be at first glance. Especially with new players.

Hitting isn't as complicated as Penetration and Exceptional success can be. Do any of you have a more streamlined work around that keeps the feel but lacks the tedium?
 
I've noticed two major flaws with MT combat:
1) interrupts
2) the penetration vs armor is scaled wrong (by comparison to Striker, where the numbers come from).

I've found that #2 and a bit of slowness is helped by using a different relationship of Pen to Damage

Pen ≥0.1 x AV: damage/10
Pen ≥0.5 x AV: damage/2
Pen ≥AV: Listed damage
Pen ≥2 x AV double damage

This is both easier to remember (the multiplier of AV is the multiplier to damage) and better matches the relative damages of Striker.

As for speeding it up further, just multiply the damage by the margin on the to-hit, rather than remembering the breakpoints, treating 0 margin as 1/2 damage. Yes, this DOES increase damages a bit, and ups the maximum just a bit.

you can also speed things up by having a table (this example uses standard rates):
Code:
Weapon: _____________________
             To Hit Margin
        AV    0    1   2-3  4-7   8+
 Px10:  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___ x0.1
  Px1:  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  x0.5
Px0.5:  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___ x1.0
            x0.5   x1   x2   x4   x8
Print such tables on cards, business card stock works, and fill them out before hand, and you never calculate the weapon again. You just look up the AV and the margin. If you really want to get fancy, you list the ranges by difficulty, as with this version:
Code:
             To Hit Roll
       Rou:    7     8    9-10 11-14  15+
       Dif:   11    12   13-14 15-18  19+
       For:   15    16   17-18 19-20  ---
       Imp:   19    20    ---   ---   ---
        AV     0     1    2-3   4-7    8+
 Px10:  ___   ___   ___   ___   ___   ___
  Px1:  ___   ___   ___   ___   ___   ___
Px1/2:  ___   ___   ___   ___   ___   ___
             x1/2    x1    x2    x4    x8

Filled out, that card looks like
Code:
For a Pen 6 Damage 3 weapon. 
             To Hit Roll
       Rou:    7     8    9-10 11-14  15+
       Dif:   11    12   13-14 15-18  19+
       For:   15    16   17-18 19-20  ---
       Imp:   19    20    ---   ---   ---
        AV     0     1    2-3   4-7    8+
 Px10: ≤_60   _0_   _0_   _1_   _2_   _4_
  Px1: ≤_6_   _0_   _1_   _3_   _6_   _12
Px1/2: ≤_3_   _1_   _3_   _6_   _12   _24
             x1/2    x1    x2    x4    x8

Most personal combats, ignore attenuation.

Further, remember: Hits don't convert to attribute damage until after combat. As I tell players, "until the adrenaline wears off." This means not having to track attribute damage for NPC's 99% of the time, just the hits.

You can speed up hits tracking by use of poker chips. Hits to down are white, to "dead" are red. (But remember - it's entirely possible to survive damage equal to your total hits. While the average damage is 3.5 points per die, and it's 3 points of atts per hit, it's not impossible.)

Also, tracking interrupts: use a card for each character; after they act, move them to a "done" stack, face up. An active you put in front of you; an interrupt, if made, goes on top, if failed, underneath the top card on the active stack.
When everyone is in the done stack, next turn.
Anyone whose card isn't in the done stack and isn't in the active stack is eligible to interrupt. Highlight PC's with one color, and NPC's with a different color for each side; this reminds people that you can't interrupt the same color.


Oh, and as an aside, I prefer to use Att/3 instead of Att/5 for the attribute mods, and up the target numbers from 3/7/11/15/19 to 4/8/12/16/20, but keep the DM limit at +8.
 
Last edited:
2) the penetration vs armor is scaled wrong (by comparison to Striker, where the numbers come from).

I've found that #2 and a bit of slowness is helped by using a different relationship of Pen to Damage

Pen ≥0.1 x AV: damage/10
Pen ≥0.5 x AV: damage/2
Pen ≥AV: Listed damage
Pen ≥2 x AV double damage

This is both easier to remember (the multiplier of AV is the multiplier to damage) and better matches the relative damages of Striker.

Should this be errata?
 
That's assuming a direct crossover to Striker.

There's a 1:1 correspondence between striker AVs and MT AV's, and between Striker Pen and MT Pen.

Functionally, MT is CT hybridized with Striker and the DGP Task System.

The expectation of damage results for small arms being similar as the systems use the same data points is a reasonable one.
 
Should this be errata?

I don't have ready access to my MT Ref's Screen, but wasn't something like Aramis' table included there? It's a good table, "half pen is half damage", and so on.

And don't forget DGP's guidelines on breaking down danger space & group hits. It's on my site in the Repair Bays.
 
Yeah, there is. I have the screen and just used it again monday night. One of the most useful Ref's screens I've ever seen.

I found a spread sheet that was in my MT folder from my 2002 campaign. It has all values broken down for no, low, & high pen. It cross references the exceptional success as well. I have no idea where I found in on the internet, but I'm going to clean it up and post it for the benefit of all.

I am going to start running MT regularly for my group, and will get a spread sheet together showing task and pen/atten for each range band per weapon.

I may also put together a crib sheet for MT combat that flows well.
 
Dunno if you're interested, but I created a Unified Range Table and a set of pen/atten tables for every weapon. Both of these are also on my site in the Repair Bays. Look for the House Rules.

I think they were inspired by Aramis' pages (maybe that's where your doco came from?).

From memory, I was trying to bring in a few of the better ideas from TNE & T4 (I think Subregional range and the aimed/snapshot difference). The mods to the range bands, the difficulty levels across the top (T4 names), and the addition of a max range came from Striker (range diff is now independent of weapon), although there is the added weapon aiming bonus.

One more change was to divide the space weapon damage dice by 10 (I can hear Will's complaints now!). This was to make the jump from TL15 Z-gun (30d6) to TL8 ship's laser (50d6) less jarring. Anyway, what does it matter if you (in PC-scale combat) get hit by a 50-dice roll or 500-dice; just as dead either way... ;-)

Finally, there's also a couple of pretty MT-style weapons sheets there as well.

Let me know if you find them useful.
 
Last edited:
Just remembered: it's worth lookig at Aramis' other MT changes as well, such as the divide-stats-by-three rule, coupled with the 4/8/12/16/20 difficulty scale. It does a nice job of making the stat bonuses more granular, while not being too hard to remember for those of us who have the 3/7/11/15 scale burnt into our brains... ;-)
 
Yes, but some of what is above are really house rules, not errata.

If there is errata here, can someone post it in the errata forum?

And yes, I consider anything that helps MT bond more tightly with Striker errata. There are spots where the merge isn't done very well.
 
I agree, those are house rules. For errata, just google Megatraveller errata and the first thing that pops up should be the MT consolidated errata.

I think that dividing by three changes the game balance way too much on attribute bonuses. Now a Routine task is closer to Simple than it was intended to be. But, that's ok in someone else's Traveller Universe. And that's what I love about this game!
 
Yes, but some of what is above are really house rules, not errata.

The 2 elements closest to errata are the modified range bands and the addition of a max range column for each weapon.

I came up with the bands by roughly averaging the Striker ranges for each "group" of weapons (handguns, rifles, etc). Then I added the sub-regional that shows up insome of the MT tables (but is never explained), and tweaked the range bands again to mak them scale sensibly - well, at least in my mind. ;-)

As for max range, MT just assumes that a weapon peters out at the "right" distance, but that was too coarse for my liking. As a fan of the gauss rifle, I wanted something that would allow it to be distinguished from the other run-of-the-mill rifles, and part of that is it's range.

I still think of these as just being house rules, however - so take them all with a grain of salt. ;-)
 
MT already has a max range for all weapons. 6th column of the weapon tables on pages 76-81 of the PM.

The only thing I think really should be errata is the change in the pen vs armor table.

Including the att/3 and TN's 4/8/12/16/20 with DM limit +9 instead of +8 as an optional rule in the errata might not be a bad thing. Lots of people have adopted it from me...
 
Last edited:
Your not the only one to have come up with Attrib/3 I've had a couple of GMs do the same. And one of them never had internet access.

The issue with it is that it make Attributes more powerfull, when it should really be skills that are the key.

Best regards,

Ewan
 
The issue with it is that it make Attributes more powerfull, when it should really be skills that are the key.

Agree that Trav is much more of a skills-based game than, say, the first 2 versions of D&D. However, for me the MT/5 rule that gives no difference between STR-10 and STR-14 just seems a little... wrong, especially given you have to foreego a roll on another skill table & roll on Personal Development instead. That is, it costs as much as a skill to acquire, but doesn't return as much. Changing the threshold slightly (at most, it adds +2, and this gets an effective -1 from the changed difficulty table anyway) doesn't unbalance things, while still giving the players the impression they are contributing more effectively. ;-)

(You've got to leave them their little illusions. ;-) )

Rather than errata, maybe it could be included as a alternative skill system.

BTW, does the errata mention the use of incremental Diff levels? For example, Routine+2 for a slightly stuck door, rather tgan pushing it to Difficult? It's described somewhere in one of Joe's essays or Q&A pages, possibly in the last MT journal. Anyone ever used these?
 
Last edited:
Agree that Trav is much more of a skills-based game than, say, the first 2 versions of D&D. However, for me the MT/5 rule that gives no difference between STR-10 and STR-14 just seems a little... wrong, especially given you have to foreego a roll on another skill table & roll on Personal Development instead. That is, it costs as much as a skill to acquire, but doesn't return as much. Changing the threshold slightly (at most, it adds +2, and this gets an effective -1 from the changed difficulty table anyway) doesn't unbalance things, while still giving the players the impression they are contributing more effectively. ;-)

(You've got to leave them their little illusions. ;-) )

Rather than errata, maybe it could be included as a alternative skill system.

BTW, does the errata mention the use of incremental Diff levels? For example, Routine+2 for a slightly stuck door, rather tgan pushing it to Difficult? It's described somewhere in one of Joe's essays or Q&A pages, possibly in the last MT journal. Anyone ever used these?

I have, and I and my group really didn't find it worth the bother most of the time.
 
I agree. If you use a task system then use it. If you want a free flow task system than use CT. The power of a free flow system is that it's eminently flexable.

Want a task that is easier with higher skill levels, then put a DM on the skill.

Task: Open Hart Surgary throw 15+ with +2 DM per Medical Skill level

So a Surgen with Medical-3 throws (2D6 +3 for Medical Skill +6 for the Skill DM), however with no medial skill you don't have a chance.

Best regards,

Ewan
 
I agree. If you use a task system then use it. If you want a free flow task system than use CT. The power of a free flow system is that it's eminently flexable.

Want a task that is easier with higher skill levels, then put a DM on the skill.

Task: Open Hart Surgary throw 15+ with +2 DM per Medical Skill level

So a Surgen with Medical-3 throws (2D6 +3 for Medical Skill +6 for the Skill DM), however with no medial skill you don't have a chance.

Best regards,

Ewan

In this example, an expert surgeon (as a specialist should be), Medical 4, edu 10, has an effective modifier of +14, so, only the maximum of +8 adds some risk to the surgery (which is quite dangerous in real).

Keeping it as rules say, this same surgeon would have a +6 modifier, so the surgery would be quite dangerous, as it should be IMHO.

We always should remember that failing the task doesn't mean the death of the patient, but some complications in/after surgery (depending on the mishap rolled).

Also to remember is the fact that I keep thinking most hospital medical acts (at least outside the ER) should be done as careful tasks, or you will be soon quite close to your attorney.
 
In this example, an expert surgeon (as a specialist should be), Medical 4, edu 10, has an effective modifier of +14, so, only the maximum of +8 adds some risk to the surgery (which is quite dangerous in real).

Keeping it as rules say, this same surgeon would have a +6 modifier, so the surgery would be quite dangerous, as it should be IMHO.

We always should remember that failing the task doesn't mean the death of the patient, but some complications in/after surgery (depending on the mishap rolled).

Also to remember is the fact that I keep thinking most hospital medical acts (at least outside the ER) should be done as careful tasks, or you will be soon quite close to your attorney.

Well said Sir!
 
Back
Top