Fixing T5 - NPC DAMAGE

[Supplement Four]

- NPC DAMAGE -



Problem: The NPC Damage rule says to ignore damage of 9- and damage of 10+ points renders the NPC out of action. It is impossible to damage an NPC using this rule with a weapon incapable of inflicting 10 points of damage. Many pistols and some rifles in the game only do 1D damage.



Solution: Amend the NPC damage rule on page 214 and page 222 so that a weapon that does 1D damage will render an NPC Out of Action when maximum damage is thrown.

Thus, the Re-4 revolver, shown on page 240, which does Bullet-1 damage, will render an NPC out of action when a "6" is thrown for damage.







Example -

A PC is in a fist fight with an NPC. The PC has STR-7. According to page 260, the PC will do 1D damage when he is successful on a strike.

Thus, when a "6" is thrown for damage, the NPC foe will be knocked out of action. Otherwise, the NPC is unharmed.

The PC takes damage normally, per the T5 damage rules.





- EDIT: ARENTOL'S IDEA -

Check out post #8 below. Arentol has an interesting idea where damage is tracked on an NPC over a number of combat rounds, and once 10+ points are reached, the NPC is taken out of commission and considered Out of Action. Arentol is convinced that the T5 rules are meant to be played this way. I am 100% convinced of the opposite. Regardless, I think Arentol has an interesting, workable fix for T5 with regard to weapons that do 1D damage. For those Ref's who don't mind tracking damage this way, Arentol's idea could work in place of what I'm suggesting above.

The difference in my rule and Arentol's: Arentol's rule requires damage tracking on NPCs (which, I think, defeats the purpose of the easy 10+ NPC damage rule), and my above fix does not. Plus, with Arentol's rule, it will never be possible to take an NPC out of action in a single round. With my rule, you've got a 17% chance of taking the NPC out of action if the NPC is hit and damaged.

But, some may like Arentol's interpretation, so I list it here as a possible T5 fix for NPC damage.

 

[BytePro]

That makes odds of putting NPCs out of action exactly the same for 1D and 2D damage.

Roll 2D and increase the target to 11+ halves the odds.

 

[arentol]

I have yet to see anything to convince me that the injuries don't roll over from round to round. The way I read page 222 is not that you are to ignore that they receive an injury, just that you are to ignore all possible effects of all injuries received until they total 10+, and then once that happens the NPC is permanently out of the fight.

The reason for this is because it is a complete PITA to keep track of the fact that NPC 1 has 4 rounds of flash-bang effect, NPC 2 has 6 rounds of stun due to sound, NPC 3 has 7 hits, etc. Instead, you just wait until an NPC has received 10 total injuries of any kind from any source, then they are out of action for the rest of the encounter. THAT is the simplification that the "Ignore" part is covering. It is not saying to just entirely ignoring forever that someone has been shot 5 times just because the hits happened on different rounds.

 

[pendragonman]

Maybe make it an "If-Then-Else"?

If weapon damage is less than 2D, then a "6" on one D knocks NPC out of combat, Else 10+ damage to knock out?

Or perhaps that is what you meant in the OP on this thread?

 

[Supplement Four]

That makes odds of putting NPCs out of action exactly the same for 1D and 2D damage.

Roll 2D and increase the target to 11+ halves the odds.

It's a 17% chance to roll 6 on 1D.

It's a 28% chance to roll 10+ on 2D.

It's a 63% chance tor roll 10+ on 3D.

It's a 90% chance to roll 10+ on 4D.

It's a 98% chance to roll 10+ on 5D.

I have yet to see anything to convince me that the injuries don't roll over from round to round. The way I read page 222 is not that you are to ignore that they receive an injury, just that you are to ignore all possible effects of all injuries received until they total 10+, and then once that happens the NPC is permanently out of the fight.

Read page 214, under NPC effects. That will set you straight.

"Ignore injury of 9 or less."

 

[Supplement Four]

Maybe make it an "If-Then-Else"?

If weapon damage is less than 2D, then a "6" on one D knocks NPC out of combat, Else 10+ damage to knock out?

Or perhaps that is what you meant in the OP on this thread?

Yes. That's what the OP says.

If your weapon does 2D or more damage, then you use the NPC rule as stated in T4.

If your weapon does only 1D of damage, then count "6" points of damage as if it where 10 points with respect to the NPC rule.

 

[pendragonman]

Still keeps bookkeeping lite. Only have to recall a difference if the weapon does less than 2D.

Until we get clarification from Marc, it seems reasonable.

 

[arentol]

Read page 214, under NPC effects. That will set you straight.

"Ignore injury of 9 or less."

Thanks for pointing out that page, as it supports, and was actually the original catalyst for, my entire argument.

As you can see, what you are referring to is a section entitled "NPC EFFECTS" Not NPC damage, not NPC wounds, not NPC injuries, but NPC EFFECTS.

So what are Effects in this context? Effects, the things we are to ignore, are NOT the damage themselves. They are the short-term penalties that happen as a result of taking damage, as clearly described in the following section "Detailed Effects", which, slightly paraphrased, says:

"Attack effects against player characters impose specific short-term results on player characters that, at the moment of injury, reduce the use of characteristics or senses, or even render the player unconscious."

This is what the prior section is saying to ignore.... The Detailed Effects that are the result of injuries, NOT the injuries themselves. The injuries are still there, and as such they are cumulative until they total 10+, at which point they are abstracted to remove the NPC from the action.

Page 222 also backs up my argument....

"Injury or Damage in excess of those stopped by Armor or Protection is applied to the Target." FULL STOP. It is applied. Period.
Then we have:
"For Non-Player Characters and Equipment, make a simple assessment of Out-of-Action if Injury or Damage is 10+."
This part does NOT say to only consider injury received in the current round. It says to simply determine if the NPC's Injury (implied to be a temporary state for the length of the encounter) is 10+. No time limits are placed on the receipt of the injuries. All that is required is that the total injuries are 10+ during the encounter.

"But wait" you say! "What about right below that where it says to Ignore injuries of 9 or less!"

Well, lets see what that really does say:

"Non-Player Character Injury = 10+ = Out-of-Action (Ignore injury 9 or less)"

Notice how you probably automatically though of that rule as applying to "injuries", or perhaps even to "an injury of". But what it actually says is just "injury". That is sufficiently ambiguous to fail to back up your argument. In fact, the very fact that it would be so simple to make it unambiguous if you were right (by saying injuries instead of injury), and the fact that in all other related instances (page 214) it also says injury, not injuries or an injury, implies that this choice was intentional and was meant to indicate something other than a stat that is checked once, and only once, for each individual attack and then reset.

But wait! There is more. Notice it says to IGNORE Injury of 9 or less. What does that actually mean? Lets think about this for a second..... To ignore something is to refuse to acknowledge it, or not consider it. It is not to wipe it out of existence. You can ignore your nagging wife all day long, but that doesn't get rid of here. And, quite frankly, it makes a lot more sense my way anyway. Why would anyone write a rule that says to ignore that someone has been shot and injured a billion times simply because each individual bullet was not strong enough to stop them by itself. Wouldn't it make much much much much more sense that the entire purpose of the rule was to streamline combat by ignoring whether minor characters were stunned or took a leg wound so they can't run, etc., until they have taken enough damage to reasonably remove them from the fight?

Also, it would be kind of ridiculous to continue to support your viewpoint over mine when that means you are saying that the intentional design of this game (which considers injuries from each attack separately) is to allow 100 people to drop 100 1d grenades at their collective feet and all of them walk away completely unscathed. You are literally saying that is the intended rule, and are saying so in the face of my interpretation that you have to admit is at least a reasonable interpretation of the rules, and which, given the number of obvious errors in these rules (like the fact that the word "turn(s)" is suddenly used in place of the word "round(s)" on page 220, then back to "round" on almost the exact same chart on page 221, then back to "turn(s)" on 225, then (I think) never again.) is a LOT more likely to be the intended rule than "these guys can take 1000 bullets without flinching).

Now, here is the silly part. Even if you are 100% sure I am wrong about this being the rule (and I am not, but if you think so)... WHO CARES. The method I am suggesting is still the simplest solution and makes the most sense of anything I have read so far on these boards (spent a couple days reading before I got approved to post). It solves all these "problems", and does so in an incredibly simple manner. In fact, it is the same manner used by basically ever RPG ever, just in its most simple form possible. The Referee just puts ticks next to the NPC's names as they take injuries of ANY kind and when the total ticks exceed 9 they are out of the fight. Easy-Peasy.

 

[BytePro]

It's a 17% chance to roll 6 on 1D.
It's a 28% chance to roll 10+ on 2D.

10+ on 2D is 6 in 36 chances ~ 17% = 1 in 6.

It's a 17% chance to roll 6 on 1D.
It's a 17% chance to roll 10+ on 2D.

Using 6 on 1D6 makes odds of putting NPCs out of action exactly the same for 1D and 2D damage.

Roll 2D and increase the target to 11+ halves the odds.

 

[cuTTer]

Thanks for pointing out that page, as it supports, and was actually the original catalyst for, my entire argument.

As you can see, what you are referring to is a section entitled "NPC EFFECTS" Not NPC damage, not NPC wounds, not NPC injuries, but NPC EFFECTS.

Check out the FillForm example on p.258. WX: Weapon Extension box at the foot of the page details a PGMP-11. The damage (Pen-3, Burn-3 [wrong btw, but that's a different story]) is listed under Effects.

Damage is Effects.

But regardless, p.214 still says,

'If a non-player target is hit and receives injury of 10 or more, it is out-of-action. It cannot participate in the rest of the battle. Ignore injury of 9 or less.'

If I'm ignoring the injury, I'm not recording or tracking it for the round that pushes it over 9.

If you like the rule, go nuts, I've already junked it unless the players want a slice of Feng Shui action, in which case we'd probably just play Feng Shui with a Traveller skin.

 

[Supplement Four]

10+ on 2D is 6 in 36 chances ~ 17% = 1 in 6.

I stand corrected! I was looking at the T5 Charts, and I looked at the wrong line (because there are 10 chances in 36 to roll a 9...the "10" threw me off).

My mistake.

So...

6 on 1D = 17%
10+ on 2D = 17%
10+ on 2D = 63%
10+ on 3D = 90%
10+ on 4D = 98%

Roll 2D and increase the target to 11+ halves the odds.

6 on 1D = 17%
11+ on 2D = 8%
11+ on 3D = 50%
11+ on 4D = 84%
11+ on 5D = 97%

Your suggestion makes for a wonky dip in the odds for 2D. Logically, you'd want the chance to knock out an NPC to grow greater with increasing damage, not smaller, then greater.

 

[Supplement Four]

Thanks for pointing out that page, as it supports, and was actually the original catalyst for, my entire argument.

As you can see, what you are referring to is a section entitled "NPC EFFECTS" Not NPC damage, not NPC wounds, not NPC injuries, but NPC EFFECTS.

If you keep reading, the second paragraph in that section is very clear.

The overall section you are reading on page 214 is: INJURY, WOUND, AND DAMAGE.

The sub-section is: NPC Effects.

You can tell by the all-caps, and then the lower case, as used.

The next sub-section is: Detailed Effects.

And, the final sub-section is: Long Term Effects.

All fo the sub-sections illuminate aspects of the main section, which is: INJURY, WOUNDS, AND DAMAGE.

Even if you are 100% sure I am wrong about this being the rule...

I am 100% sure that you are wrong in this case.

The method I am suggesting is still the simplest solution and makes the most sense of anything I have read so far on these boards (spent a couple days reading before I got approved to post).

Post it as a T5 "Fix" for those who want to use it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Notice how you probably automatically though of that rule as applying to "injuries", or perhaps even to "an injury of".

Sometimes I wonder if people just post stuff to screw with me. o:

 

[pendragonman]

Sometimes I wonder if people just post stuff to screw with me. o:

Some of us have the same feeling.

 

[Supplement Four]

Some of us have the same feeling.

You shouldn't feel that from me. I've been backing up the comments I make with examples from the book.

And, BTW, I'd really like T5 to be a good game with minimal problems. It's just not what I want it to be, is it.

It's ambitious. I like the idea behind it. But, it is so broken and messed up in so many areas that it should be embarrassing for the authors.

 

[pendragonman]

What about the West End Star Wars (and probably others) idea of one "wild die" out of each damage roll (so even 1d6 has one) and if that die comes up a "6" roll again, continuing until that die no longer rolls a "6"?

A "6", followed by a 4+, takes out your NPC. Does that square up the percent chance issue, or make it less of an issue?

 

[Murdoc]

Some of us have the same feeling.

I've felt that way a few times here too... :nonono:

And I'm certainly not trying to do it to anyone else, but my take on all this is that I was firmly with S4 on this until I read arentol's explanation. After reading that, and then the counter-arguments, my take is a third one: that the rule is sufficiently ambiguous that it can be taken to mean either way. The fact that we are having to split hairs in order to prove a point I think confirms that ("injury" vs. "injuries", "effects" is the same as, vs isn't the same as, "damage", etc.). I agree that it could easily be made more clear with just a little bit of editing (perhaps like "the Effects of Damage"?). It does make a little more sense that the original intent was one that actually works, all things being equal, but some of the rules in T5 that I've seen that clearly do not work make any speculation about original intent dubious, IMO.

In sum, my position is that as it is, we can argue back and forth on this one all day (and indeed some have) and get nowhere because both sides are supportable. It is far easier to simply choose to interpret it the way that works until such time as it is made clearer. I've seen other rules in T5 and elsewhere where someone asked why it was wrong, or what to do about it, and was told that while it can be taken other ways, most people just interpret that rule like this... because it's easy and it works. Should it be clearer? Heck yeah. It should be errata and we can all hope that Marc shows how he intended it someday. But for now, we need a working rule, and we have an interpretation that does indeed work. Not picking on you S4, I hope my explanation was clear enough to show that. I agree with a lot of the other problems you've pointed out.

Me, I still don't like the rule entirely, unless I'm using a lot of mooks. I'll probably still use the house rule I came up with recently to either choose or randomly roll the "first attribute to be damaged", just in order to see if the NPC is knocked out. I do this because if a PC wants to punch an elderly accountant, he should have a decent chance of knocking him out in one hit, so I'd just assign said accountant a "first stat" of 4 or something. It's only one extra roll, so it still simplifies things, but adds in that tiny bit of realism I'd prefer to have. And yes, the damage would be accumulative.

Actually, on second thought, maybe I'd choose a regular stat for mooks too (all the same). Commandos in Zhodani battle-dress should be a bit tougher than a room full of elderly accountants.

 

[McPerth]

Actually, on second thought, maybe I'd choose a regular stat for mooks too (all the same). Commandos in Zhodani battle-dress should be a bit tougher than a room full of elderly accountants.

That could be treated as the old T2K (and some other games) rules for NPCs that divided them among several clases (Green, Experiencied, Veteran and Elite) and giving each class generic stats, so that it was easier to knock out a Green one than an elite one.

Once again disclaimer: I have not read T5, so I speack in generic terms.

 

[McPerth]

6 on 1D = 17%
10+ on 2D = 17%
10+ on 2D = 63%
10+ on 3D = 90%
10+ on 4D = 98%

I guess you made a typo here too, and you mean:

6 on 1D = 17%
10+ on 2D = 17%
10+ on 3D = 63%
10+ on 4D = 90%
10+ on 5D = 98%

 

[Licheking]

It appears that some are looking for things to be wrong and others are reading the rules and coming up with the most logical explanation to their meaning. I Personally think that Arentol's explanation is the right one, i'm still not using it, because i hate mook rules, everyone plays by the same rules in my universe that means the players and the NPC's.