A Criticism of the Bell Curve

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Well, if I counted correctly, 9 of the eleven characters had at least a +4 to hit modifier, which means they'll hit at least 91% of the time. And 4 of them -- more than a third -- had modifiers of +5 or better, which means they hit virtually all the time. And this, presumably, was using CT chargen. I kinda think you made my point for me.

I guess you didn't read my whole post. I only showed modifiers for Range, Stat, and Skill.

In my game, somebody is always moving, so that's a negative. You can increase this negative if you're also evading. Characters who are involved in firefights need to move tactically, use cover, and wear body armor--or they'll get fried, as the numbers imply.

As I said above, those numbers are the best they'll ever get (well, maybe another +2 for aim).

So...um, no, I don't think I proved your point for you.

I think the numbers stack up pretty well.

Look at the combat example in my "Simple CT Combat" thread...nobody hit anybody in that whole fight!

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Well, if I counted correctly, 9 of the eleven characters had at least a +4 to hit modifier, which means they'll hit at least 91% of the time. And 4 of them -- more than a third -- had modifiers of +5 or better, which means they hit virtually all the time. And this, presumably, was using CT chargen. I kinda think you made my point for me.

I guess you didn't read my whole post. I only showed modifiers for Range, Stat, and Skill.

In my game, somebody is always moving, so that's a negative. You can increase this negative if you're also evading. Characters who are involved in firefights need to move tactically, use cover, and wear body armor--or they'll get fried, as the numbers imply.

As I said above, those numbers are the best they'll ever get (well, maybe another +2 for aim).

So...um, no, I don't think I proved your point for you.

I think the numbers stack up pretty well.

Look at the combat example in my "Simple CT Combat" thread...nobody hit anybody in that whole fight!

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And a d20 gives you plenty of room for 5 categories of modifiers.

Tbeard,

Five catagories of modifiers is about three catagories too many, in my opinion. I'm reminded of TNE's 'Brilliant Lances'. It has so many modifiers affecting each roll that the game came with a slider to help the players keep track of them all(1).

You can easily do away with many numerical modifiers by implementing a difficulty level for each die throw. The GM could adjust the difficulty level up or down depending on one group of factors and then allow the die roll to be numerically modified by another group of factors.

Of course, this means the GM and players should feel comfortable with making such decisions and that is something too many RPG players are no longer comfortable with doing. Less then two decades after the invention of the task system allowed players to create and modify die rolls on the fly during a session, we're seeing more and more 'task libraries' and other lists that prescribe precisely what must be done in more and more game situations. People aren't playing, they're quoting instead.

For a while it was:

GM: Hmmm... dark and raining... long range... call it Formidable... you'll need to roll a 12+...
PC: I've got IR sites...
GM: Sorry, I forgot, make it Difficult and a 10+...

Now we're drifting back to:

GM: The Book 43 Rev.1 task library says it's a Formidable with modifiers for A, B, C, D, and E...
PC: The Rev.2 version says it's Difficult...
GM: I said we're using Rev.1!
PC: Why? We all own Rev.2?


Have fun,
Bill

1 - I'm also reminded of that (in)famous article in the old Space Gamer listing all the DMs for combat in CT. It ran to something like two pages of small print and including specific things like "hanging upside down from an air/raft".

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And a d20 gives you plenty of room for 5 categories of modifiers.

Tbeard,

Five catagories of modifiers is about three catagories too many, in my opinion. I'm reminded of TNE's 'Brilliant Lances'. It has so many modifiers affecting each roll that the game came with a slider to help the players keep track of them all(1).

You can easily do away with many numerical modifiers by implementing a difficulty level for each die throw. The GM could adjust the difficulty level up or down depending on one group of factors and then allow the die roll to be numerically modified by another group of factors.

Of course, this means the GM and players should feel comfortable with making such decisions and that is something too many RPG players are no longer comfortable with doing. Less then two decades after the invention of the task system allowed players to create and modify die rolls on the fly during a session, we're seeing more and more 'task libraries' and other lists that prescribe precisely what must be done in more and more game situations. People aren't playing, they're quoting instead.

For a while it was:

GM: Hmmm... dark and raining... long range... call it Formidable... you'll need to roll a 12+...
PC: I've got IR sites...
GM: Sorry, I forgot, make it Difficult and a 10+...

Now we're drifting back to:

GM: The Book 43 Rev.1 task library says it's a Formidable with modifiers for A, B, C, D, and E...
PC: The Rev.2 version says it's Difficult...
GM: I said we're using Rev.1!
PC: Why? We all own Rev.2?


Have fun,
Bill

1 - I'm also reminded of that (in)famous article in the old Space Gamer listing all the DMs for combat in CT. It ran to something like two pages of small print and including specific things like "hanging upside down from an air/raft".

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Well, if I counted correctly, 9 of the eleven characters had at least a +4 to hit modifier, which means they'll hit at least 91% of the time. And 4 of them -- more than a third -- had modifiers of +5 or better, which means they hit virtually all the time. And this, presumably, was using CT chargen. I kinda think you made my point for me.

I guess you didn't read my whole post. I only showed modifiers for Range, Stat, and Skill.

In my game, somebody is always moving, so that's a negative. You can increase this negative if you're also evading. Characters who are involved in firefights need to move tactically, use cover, and wear body armor--or they'll get fried, as the numbers imply.

As I said above, those numbers are the best they'll ever get (well, maybe another +2 for aim).

So...um, no, I don't think I proved your point for you.

I think the numbers stack up pretty well.

Look at the combat example in my "Simple CT Combat" thread...nobody hit anybody in that whole fight! </font>[/QUOTE]I read your post, but I just wasn't persuaded by your reasoning.

And I note that if you had applied CT armor modifiers, you'd have probably come up with even *higher* to hit modifiers.

Consider (again) the example of a fairly modest Traveller character with Rifle-2 and a DEX of 8. Assume he fires an ACR burst (DS) at a cloth-armored target at short range. He does the same with an assault rifle.

In CT, he gets a +6 net modifier, so he hits and penetrates 100% of the time. Even with your -2 "everyone is always moving" modifier, he hits 91% of the time.

With an assault rifle, his net modifiers are +5 -- a 97% chance of hitting. The "everyone is always moving" modifier reduces this to an 83% chance of hitting.

These are typical Traveller weapons fired at typical targets at typical ranges by characters with relatively modest weapon skills and DEX only slightly above average. Indeed, many of your characters fit (or exceed) this profile, which implies that this is a very typical example.

And they hit the target (and penetrate its armor) almost *all* the time, even assuming "everyone always moves".

It's hard for me to see how this system is not broken.

And note that even if you use a Striker-style "to hit" roll and separate penetration roll, your characters *still* hit their target almost all of the time. In Striker, the character will have a net positive modifier of +6 (he gets a +2 autofire bonus), meaning he hits *all* the time. You'd have to apply a -4 to hit modifier to meaningfully reduce this percentage (58% chance of success). Of course, you can do this using referee's fiat... But wouldn't it be better if the system didn't *require* you to do so?

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Well, if I counted correctly, 9 of the eleven characters had at least a +4 to hit modifier, which means they'll hit at least 91% of the time. And 4 of them -- more than a third -- had modifiers of +5 or better, which means they hit virtually all the time. And this, presumably, was using CT chargen. I kinda think you made my point for me.

I guess you didn't read my whole post. I only showed modifiers for Range, Stat, and Skill.

In my game, somebody is always moving, so that's a negative. You can increase this negative if you're also evading. Characters who are involved in firefights need to move tactically, use cover, and wear body armor--or they'll get fried, as the numbers imply.

As I said above, those numbers are the best they'll ever get (well, maybe another +2 for aim).

So...um, no, I don't think I proved your point for you.

I think the numbers stack up pretty well.

Look at the combat example in my "Simple CT Combat" thread...nobody hit anybody in that whole fight! </font>[/QUOTE]I read your post, but I just wasn't persuaded by your reasoning.

And I note that if you had applied CT armor modifiers, you'd have probably come up with even *higher* to hit modifiers.

Consider (again) the example of a fairly modest Traveller character with Rifle-2 and a DEX of 8. Assume he fires an ACR burst (DS) at a cloth-armored target at short range. He does the same with an assault rifle.

In CT, he gets a +6 net modifier, so he hits and penetrates 100% of the time. Even with your -2 "everyone is always moving" modifier, he hits 91% of the time.

With an assault rifle, his net modifiers are +5 -- a 97% chance of hitting. The "everyone is always moving" modifier reduces this to an 83% chance of hitting.

These are typical Traveller weapons fired at typical targets at typical ranges by characters with relatively modest weapon skills and DEX only slightly above average. Indeed, many of your characters fit (or exceed) this profile, which implies that this is a very typical example.

And they hit the target (and penetrate its armor) almost *all* the time, even assuming "everyone always moves".

It's hard for me to see how this system is not broken.

And note that even if you use a Striker-style "to hit" roll and separate penetration roll, your characters *still* hit their target almost all of the time. In Striker, the character will have a net positive modifier of +6 (he gets a +2 autofire bonus), meaning he hits *all* the time. You'd have to apply a -4 to hit modifier to meaningfully reduce this percentage (58% chance of success). Of course, you can do this using referee's fiat... But wouldn't it be better if the system didn't *require* you to do so?

 

[aramis]

S4 is presuming a higher level of competence of Gamemasters in general than I've encountered.

The vast majority I've met of my fellow GMs tend to be, well, rules literalists. The good ones modify, tweak and change, but they are the popular exception,not the rule.

When CT was written, RPGs were just starting, and it had a skill sytem, a major improvement over much of what was out... but the combat system was not the slickest part of the game. It was actually rather cumbersome (as can be evidenced by S4's numerous attempts to Fix it... along with many others' attempts).

But it's all a matter of taste. I like the Striker and MT combat systems much better than CT's.

 

[aramis]

S4 is presuming a higher level of competence of Gamemasters in general than I've encountered.

The vast majority I've met of my fellow GMs tend to be, well, rules literalists. The good ones modify, tweak and change, but they are the popular exception,not the rule.

When CT was written, RPGs were just starting, and it had a skill sytem, a major improvement over much of what was out... but the combat system was not the slickest part of the game. It was actually rather cumbersome (as can be evidenced by S4's numerous attempts to Fix it... along with many others' attempts).

But it's all a matter of taste. I like the Striker and MT combat systems much better than CT's.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Of course, you can do this using referee's fiat... But wouldn't it be better if the system didn't *require* you to do so?

Well, I won't change your mind. Wasn't really trying to--just showing you how I don't agree with your assessment.

My modded CT combat doesn't use armor to modify the attack roll. It modifies the damage roll.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Of course, you can do this using referee's fiat... But wouldn't it be better if the system didn't *require* you to do so?

Well, I won't change your mind. Wasn't really trying to--just showing you how I don't agree with your assessment.

My modded CT combat doesn't use armor to modify the attack roll. It modifies the damage roll.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Consider (again) the example of a fairly modest Traveller character with Rifle-2 and a DEX of 8. Assume he fires an ACR burst (DS) at a cloth-armored target at short range. He does the same with an assault rifle.

In CT, he gets a +6 net modifier, so he hits and penetrates 100% of the time.

We're talking about firing a military grade weapon, in the hands of somebody who knows how to use it, at a distance of 5 meters or less, with a fully automatic burst of fire.

I don't find the to-hit odds to be unrealistic, certainly not "broken".

Let's assume vanilla CT rules (not my house rules).

+2 Combat Rifleman-2
+2 DEX-8
+1 Short Range
+0 Cloth Armor
---
+5

That's a +5 DM (where'd you get the +6 DM?) vs. a target that is standing about 15 feet away.

Combat Rifleman-2? A 97% chance of success? Needs a 3+ to hit?

Yeah, I'm OK with that. You're talking about a US Marine firing a M-16 burst at a target standing just 15 feet away--the target not doing anything to protect himself.

Those odds sound very good to me.

Consider, though...if the target evades, it drops it down a point, to a 4+ throw, making it a 92% chance of success.

At 15 feet? I'm OK with that too.

OK, let's say the target isn't an idiot and gets behind cover. Now, we're talking about a 7+ to hit. That's more like it. It's a 58% chance of a hit.

And...that's if the target is intending to fire back. He might get behind 100% cover, which makes the probability of hitting him 0%. But, that doesn't work for our discussion, so let's say he can only get the partial cover. He can still give up his chance at-bat (his chance to attack) and combine evasion with his cover, knocking the attacker's probability down to an 8+, or 42%.

I find that realistic if a trained Marine has an M-16 aimed at you.

I don't see how you think this is broken. We're talking about 5 meter range, a miltary weapon firing a fully automatic burst, in the hands of a trained military professional (Skill-2).

And, just for comparison's sake, my modded CT combat rules would work out about the same to-hit wise, except that movement is a little safer (in that I allow Speed as a -DM), and if the target gets hit, his Cloth Armor will protect him better than what it does in vanilla CT.

In my game, the DS burst from the ACT will do 3D -5 damage when it hits a target protected by Cloth Armor.

Either system...it doesn't look too broken to me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Consider (again) the example of a fairly modest Traveller character with Rifle-2 and a DEX of 8. Assume he fires an ACR burst (DS) at a cloth-armored target at short range. He does the same with an assault rifle.

In CT, he gets a +6 net modifier, so he hits and penetrates 100% of the time.

We're talking about firing a military grade weapon, in the hands of somebody who knows how to use it, at a distance of 5 meters or less, with a fully automatic burst of fire.

I don't find the to-hit odds to be unrealistic, certainly not "broken".

Let's assume vanilla CT rules (not my house rules).

+2 Combat Rifleman-2
+2 DEX-8
+1 Short Range
+0 Cloth Armor
---
+5

That's a +5 DM (where'd you get the +6 DM?) vs. a target that is standing about 15 feet away.

Combat Rifleman-2? A 97% chance of success? Needs a 3+ to hit?

Yeah, I'm OK with that. You're talking about a US Marine firing a M-16 burst at a target standing just 15 feet away--the target not doing anything to protect himself.

Those odds sound very good to me.

Consider, though...if the target evades, it drops it down a point, to a 4+ throw, making it a 92% chance of success.

At 15 feet? I'm OK with that too.

OK, let's say the target isn't an idiot and gets behind cover. Now, we're talking about a 7+ to hit. That's more like it. It's a 58% chance of a hit.

And...that's if the target is intending to fire back. He might get behind 100% cover, which makes the probability of hitting him 0%. But, that doesn't work for our discussion, so let's say he can only get the partial cover. He can still give up his chance at-bat (his chance to attack) and combine evasion with his cover, knocking the attacker's probability down to an 8+, or 42%.

I find that realistic if a trained Marine has an M-16 aimed at you.

I don't see how you think this is broken. We're talking about 5 meter range, a miltary weapon firing a fully automatic burst, in the hands of a trained military professional (Skill-2).

And, just for comparison's sake, my modded CT combat rules would work out about the same to-hit wise, except that movement is a little safer (in that I allow Speed as a -DM), and if the target gets hit, his Cloth Armor will protect him better than what it does in vanilla CT.

In my game, the DS burst from the ACT will do 3D -5 damage when it hits a target protected by Cloth Armor.

Either system...it doesn't look too broken to me.

 

[atpollard]

I once had some time to kill in an isolated location with few resources. Instead of dice, we only had coins, so we decided that "heads you succeed, tails you fail". If a task was very easy or very hard, we flipped two coins (either coin heads/both coins heads). I learned how little dice and detailed rules contribute to the fun of the typical game.

Good analysis of the effects of modifiers on a 2d6 roll. Nice to know.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by atpollard:
I once had some time to kill in an isolated location with few resources. Instead of dice, we only had coins, so we decided that "heads you succeed, tails you fail". If a task was very easy or very hard, we flipped two coins (either coin heads/both coins heads). I learned how little dice and detailed rules contribute to the fun of the typical game.

I have suggested the same thing with similar reasoning on occasion. Reaction varies from confusion about what to do with and why did we buy the zillion multicoloured multifaceted polyhedrons to implied threats to life or limb for suggesting that a character's fate should be decided on the flip of coin.

The best experience I've had as a ref, and I think the best any of my players has had, involved very little dice rolling or rules at all. Most of it was pure storytelling and role-playing.

"Dice! We don't need no stinking dice! HA HA HA HA!"

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by atpollard:
I once had some time to kill in an isolated location with few resources. Instead of dice, we only had coins, so we decided that "heads you succeed, tails you fail". If a task was very easy or very hard, we flipped two coins (either coin heads/both coins heads). I learned how little dice and detailed rules contribute to the fun of the typical game.

I have suggested the same thing with similar reasoning on occasion. Reaction varies from confusion about what to do with and why did we buy the zillion multicoloured multifaceted polyhedrons to implied threats to life or limb for suggesting that a character's fate should be decided on the flip of coin.

The best experience I've had as a ref, and I think the best any of my players has had, involved very little dice rolling or rules at all. Most of it was pure storytelling and role-playing.

"Dice! We don't need no stinking dice! HA HA HA HA!"

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Of course, you can do this using referee's fiat... But wouldn't it be better if the system didn't *require* you to do so?

Well, I won't change your mind. Wasn't really trying to--just showing you how I don't agree with your assessment.

My modded CT combat doesn't use armor to modify the attack roll. It modifies the damage roll. </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. And that's a reasonable start. It removes one category of modifiers from the "to hit" roll. But I still can't see how you can apply the other CT modifiers (as written) -- or Striker analogues -- without breaking the 2d6 system. Nor can I see any real advantage in staying with the 2d6 system if I were gonna use the standard CT modifiers.

Oh, and regarding the weapon ranges I used in my examples, I meant Medium range. To recap, at medium range, firing a burst vs cloth armor, with DEX 8+ and rifle-2, the ACR hits and penetrates on a 2+ (100%) on 2d6 while the Assault Rifle penetrates on a 3+ (97%) on 2d6. Firing single shot, the hit/penetration numbers are 4+ (92%)and 6+ (72%) respectively. Some other weapons --

SMG*: 4+ (92%), or 6+ (72%) if DEX 8-
Rifle: 7+ (58%)
Carbine: 9+ (28%), or 10+ (17%) if DEX 8-
Autopistol (short range): 5+ (83%), or 6+ (72%)if DEX 9-

These numbers don't seem terribly unreasonable to me, which implies that the CT system as explained in Books 1-3 is reasonably solid. If you limit your weapons to CT weapons (and CT skill levels), you'll probably do fine.

But when Mercenary was released it broke the system. In fact, it shattered it. Mercenary made it relatively easy to produce net to hit modifiers well in excess of +4. Here are the problems:

1. The advantageous DM for ACRs and assault rifles is +2, rather than +1 that Book 1 weapons got.

2. The DEX requirement to get the advantageous DMs was dropped to 8+ vs 10+ for autorifles and 9+ for rifles/SMGs. This greatly increased the likelihood of getting the positive DM (42% vs 27% for rifles/SMGs and 17% for autorifles)

3. The Mercenary character generation system generates many more skills -- at least 50% more in my experience -- than CT. It also created an uber-skill, Combat Rifleman, which allowed characters to use the same skill for rifles, carbines, autorifles, ACRs and assault rifles. In CT, a character with 5 points of Gun Combat skill would have to allocate them among individual weapons. With Combat Rifleman, he could get +5 when using *all* of these weapons. (I am not saying this is unrealistic; rather, I'm saying it breaks the 2d6 system).

4. Mercenary weapons are generally much more effective than CT rifles/SMGs/Autorifles, when used to fire a burst. For instance, an ACR firing single shot at medium range against cloth armor is -2 to hit. Firing a burst, it's +2, a shift of 4 points! The assault rifle firing single shot is -4 to hit and firing a burst, it's +1 to hit. An SMG firing a burst is +0 by comparison. A rifle is -2 to hit.

The cumulative effects shatter the CT system. Mercenary weapons are simply overrated for the CT system and Mercenary gives too many bonuses. If I were gonna keep the CT system and decided not to use my other modifier system, here are the changes I'd make:

1. Advantageous DMs for Assault Rifles and ACRs are +1 at DEX 9+.

2. Gun Combat skill must be bought "per weapon". Or, if that's too tough, consider each roll of Gun Cbt in the Mercenary system to be 1/2 of a skill level (round down). Or, make each level of Gun Cbt skill cost twice as much after level 2. Do *something* to limit the number of Gun Combat skills that a character can have.

3. ACRs and Assault Rifles use their single shot modifiers only. If firing a burst, add +2 to hit. By the way, this will rejuvenate the SMG. It is a little better than the assault rifle at Medium range, but inferior to it at long range. It's equal to the ACR-DS at medium range, but very inferior at long range. The autorifle is a little better than the ACR-DS (but heavier and lacks a lot of the ACR's refinements). Gauss Rifles are absurd in Mercenary; treat them like ACR-DS +1 on the armor and range tables.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Of course, you can do this using referee's fiat... But wouldn't it be better if the system didn't *require* you to do so?

Well, I won't change your mind. Wasn't really trying to--just showing you how I don't agree with your assessment.

My modded CT combat doesn't use armor to modify the attack roll. It modifies the damage roll. </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. And that's a reasonable start. It removes one category of modifiers from the "to hit" roll. But I still can't see how you can apply the other CT modifiers (as written) -- or Striker analogues -- without breaking the 2d6 system. Nor can I see any real advantage in staying with the 2d6 system if I were gonna use the standard CT modifiers.

Oh, and regarding the weapon ranges I used in my examples, I meant Medium range. To recap, at medium range, firing a burst vs cloth armor, with DEX 8+ and rifle-2, the ACR hits and penetrates on a 2+ (100%) on 2d6 while the Assault Rifle penetrates on a 3+ (97%) on 2d6. Firing single shot, the hit/penetration numbers are 4+ (92%)and 6+ (72%) respectively. Some other weapons --

SMG*: 4+ (92%), or 6+ (72%) if DEX 8-
Rifle: 7+ (58%)
Carbine: 9+ (28%), or 10+ (17%) if DEX 8-
Autopistol (short range): 5+ (83%), or 6+ (72%)if DEX 9-

These numbers don't seem terribly unreasonable to me, which implies that the CT system as explained in Books 1-3 is reasonably solid. If you limit your weapons to CT weapons (and CT skill levels), you'll probably do fine.

But when Mercenary was released it broke the system. In fact, it shattered it. Mercenary made it relatively easy to produce net to hit modifiers well in excess of +4. Here are the problems:

1. The advantageous DM for ACRs and assault rifles is +2, rather than +1 that Book 1 weapons got.

2. The DEX requirement to get the advantageous DMs was dropped to 8+ vs 10+ for autorifles and 9+ for rifles/SMGs. This greatly increased the likelihood of getting the positive DM (42% vs 27% for rifles/SMGs and 17% for autorifles)

3. The Mercenary character generation system generates many more skills -- at least 50% more in my experience -- than CT. It also created an uber-skill, Combat Rifleman, which allowed characters to use the same skill for rifles, carbines, autorifles, ACRs and assault rifles. In CT, a character with 5 points of Gun Combat skill would have to allocate them among individual weapons. With Combat Rifleman, he could get +5 when using *all* of these weapons. (I am not saying this is unrealistic; rather, I'm saying it breaks the 2d6 system).

4. Mercenary weapons are generally much more effective than CT rifles/SMGs/Autorifles, when used to fire a burst. For instance, an ACR firing single shot at medium range against cloth armor is -2 to hit. Firing a burst, it's +2, a shift of 4 points! The assault rifle firing single shot is -4 to hit and firing a burst, it's +1 to hit. An SMG firing a burst is +0 by comparison. A rifle is -2 to hit.

The cumulative effects shatter the CT system. Mercenary weapons are simply overrated for the CT system and Mercenary gives too many bonuses. If I were gonna keep the CT system and decided not to use my other modifier system, here are the changes I'd make:

1. Advantageous DMs for Assault Rifles and ACRs are +1 at DEX 9+.

2. Gun Combat skill must be bought "per weapon". Or, if that's too tough, consider each roll of Gun Cbt in the Mercenary system to be 1/2 of a skill level (round down). Or, make each level of Gun Cbt skill cost twice as much after level 2. Do *something* to limit the number of Gun Combat skills that a character can have.

3. ACRs and Assault Rifles use their single shot modifiers only. If firing a burst, add +2 to hit. By the way, this will rejuvenate the SMG. It is a little better than the assault rifle at Medium range, but inferior to it at long range. It's equal to the ACR-DS at medium range, but very inferior at long range. The autorifle is a little better than the ACR-DS (but heavier and lacks a lot of the ACR's refinements). Gauss Rifles are absurd in Mercenary; treat them like ACR-DS +1 on the armor and range tables.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
But I still can't see how you can apply the other CT modifiers (as written) -- or Striker analogues -- without breaking the 2d6 system.

I'm going to run my modded CT combat rules in the Scouts Honor as I go through that adventure.

That should tell us if it breaks the 2D6 system or not (if everyone ends up dead).

It occurs to me, though, that you're overlooking one thing with regard to Classic Traveller vanilla rules...

...and that is that Damage in CT is a bit more abstract than you might be giving it credit for.

Understand that a typical weapon in CT does 3D damage. Let's say you roll an average roll of 3, 3, 4.

Apply that damage to an average character with 777 physical stats.

As you can see, the average character can easily take average damage from a gunshot wound and only be scratched.

What does that mean?

Well, it means that the character really wasn't shot. Suffering a gunshot wound would cause more damage than could be healed completely as fast a superficial damage does in CT.

CT damage is really more akin to D&D hit points. "Was that dude just chopped with a 6 foot sword? And he's still moving?"

Yes. Easily. Why? Because the damage from the sword hit really doesn't mean that the blade bit deep into the target.

Same thing with Classic Traveller damage. It's a bit abstract. Characters can easily suffer gunshot wounds and fully automatic bursts, even without armor, and still be only scratched or hit with a minor wound that only knocks the character unconscious.

You've got to factor that in when thinking of the to-hit probabilities.

Even a 97% to-hit isn't really that high if all it means is that the character will suffer superficial wounding.

Say you had a dagger in D&D, doing 1d4 damage, and you hit 95% of the time, missing only when a "1" is rolled on the d20.

If your target has 72 hit points, are you really stabbing him multiple times, watching his life blood flow out onto the ground?

No. Or course not.

The hit points are an abstraction.

And, to an extent, so is the wounding system in Classic Traveller.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
But I still can't see how you can apply the other CT modifiers (as written) -- or Striker analogues -- without breaking the 2d6 system.

I'm going to run my modded CT combat rules in the Scouts Honor as I go through that adventure.

That should tell us if it breaks the 2D6 system or not (if everyone ends up dead).

It occurs to me, though, that you're overlooking one thing with regard to Classic Traveller vanilla rules...

...and that is that Damage in CT is a bit more abstract than you might be giving it credit for.

Understand that a typical weapon in CT does 3D damage. Let's say you roll an average roll of 3, 3, 4.

Apply that damage to an average character with 777 physical stats.

As you can see, the average character can easily take average damage from a gunshot wound and only be scratched.

What does that mean?

Well, it means that the character really wasn't shot. Suffering a gunshot wound would cause more damage than could be healed completely as fast a superficial damage does in CT.

CT damage is really more akin to D&D hit points. "Was that dude just chopped with a 6 foot sword? And he's still moving?"

Yes. Easily. Why? Because the damage from the sword hit really doesn't mean that the blade bit deep into the target.

Same thing with Classic Traveller damage. It's a bit abstract. Characters can easily suffer gunshot wounds and fully automatic bursts, even without armor, and still be only scratched or hit with a minor wound that only knocks the character unconscious.

You've got to factor that in when thinking of the to-hit probabilities.

Even a 97% to-hit isn't really that high if all it means is that the character will suffer superficial wounding.

Say you had a dagger in D&D, doing 1d4 damage, and you hit 95% of the time, missing only when a "1" is rolled on the d20.

If your target has 72 hit points, are you really stabbing him multiple times, watching his life blood flow out onto the ground?

No. Or course not.

The hit points are an abstraction.

And, to an extent, so is the wounding system in Classic Traveller.

 

[Supplement Four]

BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.