Book 1 Wounds

[RobertFisher]

I spent some more quality time with my ST booklet last evening. Between the example & a couple of key sentences added, it pretty much makes everything about how wounds are meant to be handled completely clear.

I used to lament that my ST wasn't "complete", but I'm continuing to gain new respect for it.

 

[RobertFisher]

I spent some more quality time with my ST booklet last evening. Between the example & a couple of key sentences added, it pretty much makes everything about how wounds are meant to be handled completely clear.

I used to lament that my ST wasn't "complete", but I'm continuing to gain new respect for it.

 

[Random Goblin]

Hrm. I thought I knew how to handle wounds, but now all of your talk has gotten me confused.

What's the "official" Book 1 way to handle wounds?

Say a guy with a UPP of 987xxx gets smacked with a cutlass, and the cutlass damage rolls 4, 2, and 5. It's the first time the character is hit in combat.

Then, he is stabbed in the gut with a dagger, rolling 5 and 4 for damage.

What happens, first officially, and then by your house rules.

 

[Random Goblin]

Hrm. I thought I knew how to handle wounds, but now all of your talk has gotten me confused.

What's the "official" Book 1 way to handle wounds?

Say a guy with a UPP of 987xxx gets smacked with a cutlass, and the cutlass damage rolls 4, 2, and 5. It's the first time the character is hit in combat.

Then, he is stabbed in the gut with a dagger, rolling 5 and 4 for damage.

What happens, first officially, and then by your house rules.

 

[mike wightman]

It depends what you mean by official book 1.
The Traveller Book (©1982), and Starter Traveller (©1983), were produced after Traveller was revised to produce second edition CT (©1981).
They are mostly identical in rules to CT revised, but they do include an example of combat that explains the way hits are allocated on a "first hit".

 

[mike wightman]

It depends what you mean by official book 1.
The Traveller Book (©1982), and Starter Traveller (©1983), were produced after Traveller was revised to produce second edition CT (©1981).
They are mostly identical in rules to CT revised, but they do include an example of combat that explains the way hits are allocated on a "first hit".

 

[mike wightman]

To use your example, and the guidelines from TTB and ST, what would happen is this:

Guy 987xxx, has taken 11 points of damage total (as 4,2, & 5);

roll randomly to apply the damage, roll = 4 therefore DEX is affected.

Guy 907xxx, with 3 points left to allocate;

roll randomly, roll = 5 therefore END is affected.

Guy 904xxx, unconscious.

Guy's player can decide how to allocate the 5 and 4 from the dagger.
If it were me I would choose the 5 to affect STR, and the 4 to affect END (not that it matters much ).

Guy 400xxx, unconscious and seriously wounded.

 

[mike wightman]

To use your example, and the guidelines from TTB and ST, what would happen is this:

Guy 987xxx, has taken 11 points of damage total (as 4,2, & 5);

roll randomly to apply the damage, roll = 4 therefore DEX is affected.

Guy 907xxx, with 3 points left to allocate;

roll randomly, roll = 5 therefore END is affected.

Guy 904xxx, unconscious.

Guy's player can decide how to allocate the 5 and 4 from the dagger.
If it were me I would choose the 5 to affect STR, and the 4 to affect END (not that it matters much ).

Guy 400xxx, unconscious and seriously wounded.

 

[hirch duckfinder]

KILL HIM !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hirch duckfinder]

KILL HIM !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Random Goblin]

So, the first "hit" (by which I mean all the dice/damage from one attack) is completely random.

The second and subsequent are distributed by the guy taking the damage ("Guy").

...And I still don't understand why Book 1 maintains that the first hit is more likely to incapacitate or even kill. Incapacitate sure, but I don't see how it's more likely to kill than the second or subsequent hit.

 

[Random Goblin]

So, the first "hit" (by which I mean all the dice/damage from one attack) is completely random.

The second and subsequent are distributed by the guy taking the damage ("Guy").

...And I still don't understand why Book 1 maintains that the first hit is more likely to incapacitate or even kill. Incapacitate sure, but I don't see how it's more likely to kill than the second or subsequent hit.

 

[mike wightman]

It doesn't say the first hit is more likely to kill

The first wound received by any character, however, can be enough to stun or daze...
As a result, first blood may immediately incapacitate or even kill.

That second sentence is the problem, just read "even" as "sometimes".

 

[mike wightman]

It doesn't say the first hit is more likely to kill

The first wound received by any character, however, can be enough to stun or daze...
As a result, first blood may immediately incapacitate or even kill.

That second sentence is the problem, just read "even" as "sometimes".

 

[Random Goblin]

Oh.

It just sounds, the way it's wriiten, like first blood is somehow more likely to incapacitate or kill.

When it isn't.

 

[Random Goblin]

Oh.

It just sounds, the way it's wriiten, like first blood is somehow more likely to incapacitate or kill.

When it isn't.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Guy's player can decide how to allocate the 5 and 4 from the dagger.
If it were me I would choose the 5 to affect STR, and the 4 to affect END.

Not that it really matters in this case, though. If you applied the 5 to End, it would be reduced to zero with one left over that would then have to applied to Str along with the 4, so you'd end up with the same results.

He could've applied them both to Str, leaving himself at 004xxx instead of 400xxx, but I don't know that that makes much difference.

Now if the dagger rolls were 5 & 3, he could've choosen to end up with either 104xxx or 401xxx or 500xxx. Only the last case, which would involve applying the 5 to End with 1 left over to go with the 3 against Str, is the obvious choice to avoid.

Right?

I'm tempted to not bother with carry overs once a score is reduced to zero.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Guy's player can decide how to allocate the 5 and 4 from the dagger.
If it were me I would choose the 5 to affect STR, and the 4 to affect END.

Not that it really matters in this case, though. If you applied the 5 to End, it would be reduced to zero with one left over that would then have to applied to Str along with the 4, so you'd end up with the same results.

He could've applied them both to Str, leaving himself at 004xxx instead of 400xxx, but I don't know that that makes much difference.

Now if the dagger rolls were 5 & 3, he could've choosen to end up with either 104xxx or 401xxx or 500xxx. Only the last case, which would involve applying the 5 to End with 1 left over to go with the 3 against Str, is the obvious choice to avoid.

Right?

I'm tempted to not bother with carry overs once a score is reduced to zero.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Random Goblin:
So, the first "hit" (by which I mean all the dice/damage from one attack) is completely random.

The second and subsequent are distributed by the guy taking the damage ("Guy").

Yes. Although all the dice from the first hit must also be applied against one randomly choosen characteristic until it is reduced to zero. Then the remaining damage is randomly applied to the other two.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Random Goblin:
So, the first "hit" (by which I mean all the dice/damage from one attack) is completely random.

The second and subsequent are distributed by the guy taking the damage ("Guy").

Yes. Although all the dice from the first hit must also be applied against one randomly choosen characteristic until it is reduced to zero. Then the remaining damage is randomly applied to the other two.