Changing the way armor works in CT (again I guess)

[Poppyseed45]

So, I've got this inkling to run CT for my group in a few months after we finish our other game, and I was finally reading in detail the rules of CT. Gotta say, I like what I see for combat - simple, quick, easy to run and adjucate.

However, in my reading, I realized that the armor rules were very much a throwback to D+D (which makes sense given when the game was made) - armor makes you harder to hit. I though I ought to change it to reducing damage, but don't like the idea of flat numbers for this, so, here's my thought: use "damage subtraction dice."

Keeping the weapon dice the same, here's what I came up with for the armor, based on the description in the book (and that I think that some armor makes you easier to hit is just silly). I assume, therefore, that no armor can make you "easier to damage."

To make it work, everytime you are hit, roll your armor dice (what you roll depends on the type of weapon used - for simplicity, I split this into melee, guns, and lasers). The points you roll subtract directly from the damage of the hit - apply the rest to a physical attribute as normal.

1. No armor - you take full dice of damage.

2. Jack - melee - 1D, guns - 0, laser - 0

3. Mesh - melee - 2D, guns - 1D, laser - 0

4. Cloth - melee - 2D, guns - 2D, laser - 0

5. Reflect - melee - 0, guns - 0, laser - 4D

6. Ablative - melee - 0, guns - 0, laser - 3D

7. Combat Armor - melee - 3D, guns - 3D, laser - 3D

8. Battle Dress - melee - 5D, guns - 4D, laser - 4D

Following die-roll numbers, on average, you'll see that hand to hand damage can still get through the lower armors with some luck, and guns are still deadly. Lasers generally trump all (if you can get them!).

What do you all think?

 

[Supplement Four]

Gotta say, I like what I see for combat - simple, quick, easy to run and adjucate.

Agreed. CT is a brilliant game.

However, in my reading, I realized that the armor rules were very much a throwback to D+D (which makes sense given when the game was made) - armor makes you harder to hit.

I used to think as you do. The rules in CT and D&D can certainly be interpreted that way. The CT method is a bit different from the D&D method, though.

So, let me hit you with a thought from another angle...



An unarmored target out in the open is hit on a throw of 8+, plus mods. When that target moves behind cover (let's say he crouches behind a downed air/raft), the GM allows the CT cover modifier of -4 DM.

We have no problem with that, right? At target out in the open is hit using one number. And, a target, that is harder to hit because he's behind cover, is hit at a lower number.

Armor, really, is the same thing. It's cover.

So, I submit to you, this... The To-Hit number in CT isn't a number that is needed to actually hit the target. The To-Hit number represents the difficulty in hitting and damaging the target.

The To-Hit number in CT is really a number To-Hit and Penetrate Armor.

It's a bit abstract in that some attack throws that miss may actually be hits on the target that do little or no damage. A miss could mean an out-right miss (I think most misses are like this), but a miss could also mean the character was tagged with a scratch, near miss, or armor-absorbing hit that did not result in damage of at least one point to the character.

CT To-Hit throws represent more than just "if the target was hit." The throw represents "if the target was hit and damaged."

It's a To-Hit-And-Penetrate throw.





To support my thought on this, just look at the Armor Matrix. Let's use the same weapon, fired by the same character, at the same target, and see what happens.

Dukee is DEX-7 and AutoPistol-1

The target is at Short Range

In order to hit the target, Dukee needs...

...a roll of 4+ if the target is wearing Jack, Reflec, or no armor at all.

...a roll of 6+ if the target is wearing Mesh or Ablat armor.

...a roll of 8+ if the target is weaing Cloth armor.

...a roll of 10+ if the target is wearing Combat armor.



You see, we've changed no aspect of the shot here except the target's armor. Obviously, the number represented is what is needed to not only hit the target but also penetrate the armor.

"Fine," you say. "Well," you continue, "what is the number needed to hit the target and not penetrate?"

"Simple," I reply. "The number needed to hit a target, without regard to armor, is given in the Armor Matrix. It's the DM in the column if the target is wearing Nothing."

So, in my example above, just hitting the target requires a throw of 4+.

Hitting and damaging the target, if the target is wearing armor, is indicated above and can be anywhere from 4+ to 10+, depending on the resistance of the armor.




Given all this, I think the CT Armor Matrix does a pretty good job of doing what its supposed to do without modification.

We just have to stop thinking of the "To-Hit" throw as a throw needed to hit the target...and start thinking of it as the throw needed to hit and damage the target.

 

[pendragonman]

S-4 has it right. When we play CT, we even call it a "to harm" roll instead of to hit.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Now that IS a different way of thinking about it...hmm...I'll meditate on this and see. It's been SO long since I've played the game I don't remember how it actually worked out play-wise.

Thanks so far folks - keep it coming!

 

[dean]

To support my thought on this, just look at the Armor Matrix. Let's use the same weapon, fired by the same character, at the same target, and see what happens.

Dukee is DEX-7 and AutoPistol-1

The target is at Short Range

In order to hit the target, Dukee needs...

...a roll of 4+ if the target is wearing Jack, Reflec, or no armor at all.

...a roll of 6+ if the target is wearing Mesh or Ablat armor.

...a roll of 8+ if the target is weaing Cloth armor.

...a roll of 10+ if the target is wearing Combat armor.



You see, we've changed no aspect of the shot here except the target's armor. Obviously, the number represented is what is needed to not only hit the target but also penetrate the armor.

"Fine," you say. "Well," you continue, "what is the number needed to hit the target and not penetrate?"

"Simple," I reply. "The number needed to hit a target, without regard to armor, is given in the Armor Matrix. It's the DM in the column if the target is wearing Nothing."

So, in my example above, just hitting the target requires a throw of 4+.

Hitting and damaging the target, if the target is wearing armor, is indicated above and can be anywhere from 4+ to 10+, depending on the resistance of the armor.

Given all this, I think the CT Armor Matrix does a pretty good job of doing what its supposed to do without modification.

We just have to stop thinking of the "To-Hit" throw as a throw needed to hit the target...and start thinking of it as the throw needed to hit and damage the target.

S4:

The only problem I have with this is that Dukee, who shoots a guy in combat armor, is going to to the same damage to him as the target wearing nothing.

If we assume hollow points in a standard slug-thrower, combat armor will definitely reduce damage regardless.

Please share your thoughts....

Happy Travelling

 

[robject]

The only problem I have with this is that Dukee, who shoots a guy in combat armor, is going to to the same damage to him as the target wearing nothing.

But, on the average, much less often. A lucky shot at a joint, perhaps. That's a feature, because you want combat to eventually end, so a hit is a hit. Make it count.

By the way, that helps prevent munchkinism.

It's definitely a to-pen roll.

And, it's fast.

 

[casquilho]

If we assume hollow points in a standard slug-thrower, combat armor will definitely reduce damage regardless.

Dean, why would we make such an assumption?

Just curious.

Daniel

 

[Supplement Four]

S4:

The only problem I have with this is that Dukee, who shoots a guy in combat armor, is going to to the same damage to him as the target wearing nothing.

If we assume hollow points in a standard slug-thrower, combat armor will definitely reduce damage regardless.

Please share your thoughts....

Not necessarily the same damage. He'll roll the same number of dice, but damage may be widely different. An AutoPistol does 3D damage. So, damage against the non-armored target could be 18 points, and damage against the combat armored target could be 3 points. Or the reverse of that could be true. Or any combination to either.

I used to fret about Traveller damage ratings. Take a look. Chances are your weapon of choice does 3D.

Then, I started thinking of the real nature of real gunshot wounds. The results are all over the place. One man takes five gunshot wounds and lives, while another takes one shot and dies.

That plays out in Traveller, doesn't it? It does. It could be a character with high stats taking 3D x 5 rolls of damage, but each roll is really low. Or, the character with low stats taking one roll of 3D when the dice all result in high numbers.

The game accomodates that. It's real hard to realisticly rate what a gunshot bullet will do to you, so I believe that CT does at least as good a job modeling real life damage as any other game I've ever seen. I mean, who can easily model what a .45 slug will do to a target vs. a 9mm slug? It's hard to do and still keep the game fast and easy. There are so many factors to consider when a bullet pierces the skin.

Plus, let's not forget that we like damage realistic, because we aren't playing supermen in Traveller but rather than normal, everyday joes. But, we really don't want it too realistic either. Otherwise, gunfights are no "fun", and action will be non-existent in most games.

Incidentally, this is why gunfights in CT will most likely knock your character unconscious rather than kill him. It's still dangerous, and the chance that a character will be killed is still there. But, damage in CT is geared towards knocking a character unconscious and out of play--but able to be healed and brought back into play--rather than maiming or killing the character. I believe this is a nod towards making CT a playable game rather than a true realistic simulation.

And, that's how it should be. Who wants to play a game where the main characters die everytime a bad guy produces a weapon?

If you ask me, CT has found the right balance between realism and playability. There's enough danger in the game (make sure you use the First Blood Rule!) to make the players respect combat, but there's also enough "playability" built into the rules to ensure that every gunfight is not a death-fest.

I think it works, and it works well.

If we assume hollow points in a standard slug-thrower, combat armor will definitely reduce damage regardless.

I wanted to address this one statement directly. And, I think this is really the answer you're looking for...

The AutoPistol vs. a target with no armor does 3D damage.

The AutoPistol vs. a target armored in Combat Armor does 3D damage.

But...don't forget that these two damage rating don't occur at the same frequency.

A 4+ was needed to hit and damage the target with no armor.

A 10+ was needed to hit and damage the target with combat armor.

That's a 92% chance the target without armor will be hit and damaged, and that's only a 17% chance that the combat armored target will be hit and damaged.

So, what does that mean?

It means the combat armored target will only be damaged by one in six shots!

The non-armored target will be hit almost every shot (9-in-10).

So, when firing your AutoPistol with the hollow point ammo, you're much, much more likely to hit and damage the target without armor than you are the target armored in combat armor.

Fire at a target without armor? You're likely to damage him.

Fire at a target wearing combat armor? You're likely not to damage him.

So, even though both weapons do 3D damage, one is much more likely to penetrate and damage than the other.

That's really your answer.

The dude in combat armor is likely not to be damaged at all when facing an enemy with an AutoPistol. Considering that some missed shots acutally do hit but don't do damage, then the combat armor really is reducing damage--just not in the way you're thinking.

 

[beowulf2044]

That's an elegant looking system there, Mencelus. Just to offer an alternative view, I've run years of Traveller games using the 'To Hit' page from CT (ignoring the Armor Matrix) and Mercenary, using the listed damage for individual weapopns, then applying the armor ratings found in AHL.

For example, an autopistol at Medium range was subject to a -4 To Hit, if a hit occured, then 3d6 damage occured, if the target was wearing Cloth Armor, then six points was subtracted from the damage. It worked for us.

The only modification to your rules set would be to add 1D6 protection Melee to Ablat as it offered some protection due to its bulk, and then reduce its effectivenes against lasers by -1 per laser hit. Just some thoughts.

 

[Poppyseed45]

That's an elegant looking system there, Mencelus. Just to offer an alternative view, I've run years of Traveller games using the 'To Hit' page from CT (ignoring the Armor Matrix) and Mercenary, using the listed damage for individual weapopns, then applying the armor ratings found in AHL.

For example, an autopistol at Medium range was subject to a -4 To Hit, if a hit occured, then 3d6 damage occured, if the target was wearing Cloth Armor, then six points was subtracted from the damage. It worked for us.

The only modification to your rules set would be to add 1D6 protection Melee to Ablat as it offered some protection due to its bulk, and then reduce its effectivenes against lasers by -1 per laser hit. Just some thoughts.

You right there about the Ablat - I'll add it in then.

As for the armor subtraction - I was thinking of that, but I wondered if some of the numbers were too low - which is why I went with dice. However, now thinking about it, maybe those numbers are right? What I don't get is why not wearing armor, or wearing certain armors, makes a target easier to hit? I realize that I could view it as "roll to damage" but, I don't know, that feels weird to me still.

Thanks for comments so far folks. Keep them going.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Snipped

I do see where you're coming from with this, sir, but I still feel it lacks something. For example, armor I feel armor ought to protect you from damage, and ought to let you have an idea about what you can deal with or not with that armor. A guy in Battle Dress, for example, ought not to fear hordes of knife wielding thugs - frankly, it's silly (how would a knife even reach him!, not to mention damage the armor enough to do so!).

However, even armor is not perfect, and as far as I understand, anything less than Battle Dress isn't perfectly sealed or rigid, and so, can be penetrated - thus the random roll. As I mentioned, on average, the armor rolls ought to produce numbers that let the wearer be protected against lesser things within the die range, and not so much from greater this, so that, if a guy wears mesh, he's got some protection from guns, but as we know in real life, even the best bullet-proof vests sometimes aren't. I think the system I presented reflects that.

Also, gives another "last roll" to a PC when taking damage. I don't think it adds too much die rolling, but another chance to wait with baited breath.

Lastly, I don't think this would lead to an arms/armor race - the types of armor are so limited anyway, and not cheap, that PCs would have to think carefully about it. Not to mention the old saw that walking around fully armed and armored, even if it's legal, is a great way of advertising to the authorities that you might mean trouble.

 

[tbeard1999]

So, I've got this inkling to run CT for my group in a few months after we finish our other game, and I was finally reading in detail the rules of CT. Gotta say, I like what I see for combat - simple, quick, easy to run and adjucate.

However, in my reading, I realized that the armor rules were very much a throwback to D+D (which makes sense given when the game was made) - armor makes you harder to hit. I though I ought to change it to reducing damage, but don't like the idea of flat numbers for this, so, here's my thought: use "damage subtraction dice."

I believe that at the end of the day, CT's combat system produces reasonable results for an RPG, although it may use unintuitive and somewhat inflexible mechanics to get there. (I caveat this statement with my claim that Book 4 weapons and Book 4+ skills bloat break the CT combat system).

In CT, if a character is wounded, he's likely to be KO'd by the first hit. This is dramatic and allows for quick, decisive combats in which a relatively small number of PCs actually die. The "first hit" rule is critical because the average CT character cannot be killed outright with a single gunshot. (90% of characters will have 16+ hit points; only 5% of typical gunshots will do 16+ points of damage. 80% of CT characters will have 19+ hits, which makes them unkillable by a single hit from a 3d gun, which is most CT guns.)

Any system that reduces damage from hits will inevitably make combat less decisive, as armored targets take less damage and find it far easier to survive the "first hit" rule. The result is a slow erosion of hit points from armored targets and combats will drag on. YMMV as to whether this is a good thing or not. Given the research on actual gun combat, neither model is particularly realistic. But since RPGs are *dramatic* forms, this doesn't worry me overmuch.

My main criticisms of the CT combat system are (a) it's way too easy to score a damaging hit with some weapons (particularly with Book 4 weapons and Book 4+ characters); and (b) the CT system does not easily allow for expansion, nor for easy integration with vehicles; and (c) it's a bit fiddly, though this can be largely remedied with a combined armor/range to hit chart ala Snapshot.

You can resolve (a) by simply eliminating (or reducing) positive to hit modifiers on the armor and range charts. See my extensive post on this from last year.

You can resolve (c) by using the Snapshot chart or making your own.

I've never found a solution for (b) that fits my taste, though some valiant attempts have been made. The most common way to add weapons are to make a new weapon like an existing one, but with a +1 or -1 or whatever. More detailed expansions require another row on an already crowded Snapshot chart. The same is true of armor. Vehicle armor can be modeled adequately by treating it as Cloth or Combat Armor, with modifiers for heavier thickness.

As to your question, the problem I see with your approach is that you equate damage and penetration, which may not be reasonable with certain weapons. A shotgun, for instance, does massive damage, but would be seriously degraded by armor. Same is true of shrapnel. Armor piercing rounds, on the other hand, would be very effective in penetrating armor, but wouldn't do any more damage than a normal bullet.

So I suggest that you look at T4's system, which is very much like yours, but resolves these issues. Also, I posted my outline of how I adapted T4 to my own CT campaign http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=14974 . Note that you will have to change the damage ratings of weapons from T4 to model CT.

Hope this helps.

 

[dean]

Hollow Points

Dean, why would we make such an assumption?

Just curious.

Daniel

Because, realistically, an autopistol is a close range weapon useful at decommissioning (mostly) unarmored targets, so you might as well use the bullet that maximizes that effect. Sure if you're routinely going up against armored targets using your autopistol, you'd use AP, but then again your life expectancy is probably not-so-good, anyway.

 

[dean]

Not necessarily the same damage. He'll roll the same number of dice, but damage may be widely different. An AutoPistol does 3D damage. So, damage against the non-armored target could be 18 points, and damage against the combat armored target could be 3 points. Or the reverse of that could be true. Or any combination to either.

It does the same damage - just not as frequently.

I completely understand your point-of-view, and it does effectively abstractualize the average damage a character might expect to suffer in a gun fight.

I have a problem with that because it creates an averaging of the damage, that it's quite possible, either due to good or bad luck, to do no damage, or to do tremendous damage, with one or more shots.

And, I guess that's because in my mind, Combat Armor (especially) is simply unpowered battle dress in it's armor characteristic, should realistically be invunerable to massive damage from low-velocity, low slug weight weapons. Even shots to the joints would be mitigated, and (IMO) there certainly should not be a measurable possiblity of those kinds of weapons to incapacitate a Combat Armor-wearing foe.

That all said, because it is simply the most elegant, quick combat system I've ever encountered, I still use it in it's form as written. But it still bugs me....

 

[castiglione]

I've got no problem with armor reducing the chance to hit something.

It's very much a "throw-back" to wargames, not surprising since the designers were grognards.

You see the same influence in OD&D.

Basically, these games evolved from wargames and were designed by wargamers and they basically grafted on what they knew onto the new games they designed.

In OD&D, the "to hit" roll was actually a "to KILL" roll. So it makes sense that armor makes you harder to KILL. Of course, after a few playings, people realized it wasn't too much fun playing a character who died that easily so they got the idea of "hit points" but they kept the same base system.

I imagine Traveller's start was similar to this.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

It is a trade off between realism and fast pase and all systems need to draw the line somewhere. Personally i prefer systems that provide a good base and let the gaming group add the chrome rules themselves.

My first experience was with MT 18 years ago, and let me tell you, that system was far to complicated for a 15 year old swede to understand. Eventually we got a system together ofcourse, but i think we had a gear box made out of chrome if you catch my drift...

 

[Supplement Four]

It does the same damage - just not as frequently.

One could argue that it really doesn't do the same damage because of the frequency.

Let's say, from our sample above, that Dukee took 10 shots at a non-armored target and another 10 shots at a target dressed in combat armor.

The target without armor will be hit and damaged, on average, 9 times in those 10 shots.

That's 27D damage.

OTOH, the target in combat armor will be hit and damaged, on average, only twice.

That's 6D damage.

27D vs. 6D damage....many would look at that and say that, indeed, combat armor does reduce damage.

And, I guess that's because in my mind, Combat Armor (especially) is simply unpowered battle dress in it's armor characteristic, should realistically be invunerable to massive damage from low-velocity, low slug weight weapons.

Your interpretation of Combat Armor is obviously a little different from the official version. But, it would be easy to adjust the Armor Matrix to reflect your view of Combat Armor in your game. Just adjust the Armor penalty to a DM you think appropriate.

Let's not forget...(and many people do, in these types of discussions), that the number shown to hit and damage a character is for a character out in the open.

Like real life, Traveller characters in combat should remain behind cover and advance to cover. This adds another -4DM to to-hit throws during a game. And, this makes the weapons in Traveller much less likely to damage their targets.

From the Dukee example earlier, Combat Armor becomes impossible to damage if the character is behind cover. The target number goes from 10+ to 14+, which, of course, is impossible with 2D6. More skill or some other change in the circumstances is needed before Dukee can hit and damage a target in combat armor behind cover.

(I caveat this statement with my claim that Book 4 weapons and Book 4+ skills bloat break the CT combat system).

Have to disagree, TBeard. Consider that most targets will be behind cover in a combat situation, which adjusts the to-hit numbers with a -4 DM.

Plus, minimal damage, when the target is damaged, is really not a gunshot wound. A character with 777 physical stats who takes damage to reduce his stats to 157 is not really "shot". He'll heal fully in 30 minutes. Some other abstract damage was applied to the character--not a gunshot wound.

I do see where you're coming from with this, sir, but I still feel it lacks something.

I've spent years altering and modifying CT, only to come back to the basic game. All of my tinkering has made me understand CT better than I ever did before. It's like taking apart a beautiful engine and really learning what makes it run.

But, in the end, it's your game. You should alter it for maximum enjoyment for your game. If you feel the game needs altering, then alter it.

For example, armor I feel armor ought to protect you from damage, and ought to let you have an idea about what you can deal with or not with that armor.

As I mention above, CT already does that.

Look at the Dukee example earlier in this post.

10 shots at a target without armor results in about 27D damage.

10 shots at a target wearing combat armor results in about 6D damage.

Obviously, armor is reducing damage...it's just doing it in a different way than you're suggesting. Each damage roll isn't reduced, but the number of times the damage is applied is reduced. The net effect is that total damage is reduced due to armor type.

A guy in Battle Dress, for example, ought not to fear hordes of knife wielding thugs - frankly, it's silly (how would a knife even reach him!, not to mention damage the armor enough to do so!).

If the BD is jointed and allows movement, there's got to be some soft spots for a knife to penetrate.

But, it ain't that easy.

Dukee is STR-7 and Dagger-1. He fights a character in Combat Armor. Dukee can only hit and damage his target on a roll of 12 exactly. That's less than a 3% chance each combat round (every 15 seconds).

I'd say that your guy in Battle Dress really doesn't fear the knife-bearing hordes.

PLUS, even if Dukee does manage to the tip of the steel through the soft but protected joints on the Combat Armor, he's only going to do 2D damage--which is most likely to result in a scratch on the target and not a life-threatening wound.

I think that CT models that fairly well.

 

[Supplement Four]

Damage in CT

Also, let's not forget the way damage works in Classic Traveller.



For example. Dukee, with DEX-7 and AutoPistol-1, fires his weapon and hits his target, doing 3D damage.

The first time the target is damaged, we use the first blood rule. Thus, all wound points are taken from a single stat. Our target has physicals of 777. Damage rolled is 3, 2, 1.

That's six points of damage, applied to STR randomly, making our target have physical stats of 177.

Next round, Dukee lands another hit. He roll damage: 5, 2, 3. Now, since the first blood rule has already been used, the defender applies damage as he sees fit just as long as he doesn't break up a die to do so. So, deftly taking the damage to the defender's benefit, the target ends up with stats of 122.

And, at the end of the second round, the defender fires at, hits, and incapacitates Dukee (first blood rule got him).

What really happened?

Was the defender actually shot twice?



I say, "No, he wasn't."

Why?

You've got to look at the effects of damage.



First off, in CT, stats are considered at full level until the combat is over. So, even though the character's STR was reduced to 1, this does not affect the character's carry allowance until after the combat.

Even though the character's DEX was reduced to 2 during the combat, this would not affect the charcter's DEX weapon penalty or bonus until the combat was over.

Second, not a single stat on this character was reduced to zero. Therefore, all damage is considered superficial. Superficial damage can be healed, completely, by a doctor or medic (Medical-1 needed), in as little time as half an hour.



So, given the effects, can we say that the character was shot twice? No. He wasn't shot at all. He only sustained superficial damage--and the only time that damage hindered his ability as a character was during that 30 minute period after the fight was over.



So, the "hit points" in Classic Traveller are a bit abstract in what they represent as damage to the character. So is the fact that the character was hit and damaged. At most, if a hit did indeed occur, this was only a scratch--a graze.

If the character is wearing armor, we can rationalize this by saying the character's armor aborbed the shots, and the damage applied is from bruise damage. If the character isn't wearing armor, the damage is a little harder to explain--maybe the character was winded during the fight, fatigued.

Either way, Classic Traveller inflicts some abstract damage on characters, and it is not always easy to explain what actually happened (what realisticly could have happened).

 

[tbeard1999]

Like real life, Traveller characters in combat should remain behind cover and advance to cover. This adds another -4DM to to-hit throws during a game.

Where's the reference to -4 DM for being in cover? I can't find it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Where's the reference to -4 DM for being in cover? I can't find it.

Pg. 45, and then again, on pg. 48 of the Traveller Book in the Cover and Concealment section, next to the sections on Reloading, Armor, Darkness and Night, and Zero Gravity.