help weasel grok: Damage and combat

[weasel fierce]

So when multiple dice of damage are rolled, and its not the first hit, the dice are distributed as the player sees fit, between the stats.

For say, a carbine doing 4D6-8, how would this work precisely ?

lets say I roll a 3, 4, 4, 6. Does the -8 take away a die, or could I get rid of both 4's or how does this actually play ?


Also, for high powered weapons, like gauss rifles, where autohits can occur a lot, do you guys change this (like using Striker) or just assume that modern firepower really bloody hurts unless you're wearing battle dress ?

 

[weasel fierce]

So when multiple dice of damage are rolled, and its not the first hit, the dice are distributed as the player sees fit, between the stats.

For say, a carbine doing 4D6-8, how would this work precisely ?

lets say I roll a 3, 4, 4, 6. Does the -8 take away a die, or could I get rid of both 4's or how does this actually play ?


Also, for high powered weapons, like gauss rifles, where autohits can occur a lot, do you guys change this (like using Striker) or just assume that modern firepower really bloody hurts unless you're wearing battle dress ?

 

[Malenfant]

I'd assume the intent is that you add up the dice, subtract 8, and then distribute the final total among the stats?

(though wait a sec - if you roll 8 or less in total then you do no damage at all, even if the target is unarmoured? Which means you've got about a 5.4% of doing no damage at all each time you hit an unarmoured target? That seems a bit... odd)

 

[Malenfant]

I'd assume the intent is that you add up the dice, subtract 8, and then distribute the final total among the stats?

(though wait a sec - if you roll 8 or less in total then you do no damage at all, even if the target is unarmoured? Which means you've got about a 5.4% of doing no damage at all each time you hit an unarmoured target? That seems a bit... odd)

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by weasel fierce:
So when multiple dice of damage are rolled, and its not the first hit, the dice are distributed as the player sees fit, between the stats.

Correct. If it's not the first hit. (Under official CT rules.)

For say, a carbine doing 4D6-8, how would this work precisely ?

Where'd you get the "-8" from? First edition CT? Or, is that from Striker? Or, are you talking about my enhanced CT system where "-8" damage is possible?

If First edition, the rules never really said how to handle that. I assume it's defender's choice.

If you're talking about Striker, then dice won't be allocated. You'll roll on a chart that will give you the wound level.

If you're talking about my enhanced CT combat system, then the "-8" would be defender's choice. And, my enhanced combat sytem uses random damage dice on every hit (if you roll high enough), so a defender would typically use that "-8" to reduce any random die against him first.

lets say I roll a 3, 4, 4, 6. Does the -8 take away a die, or could I get rid of both 4's or how does this actually play ?

If you're talking about official CT, there would be no "-8" on the damage throw (unless you've got a real old and rare first edition set of the rules).

Also, for high powered weapons, like gauss rifles, where autohits can occur a lot, do you guys change this (like using Striker) or just assume that modern firepower really bloody hurts unless you're wearing battle dress ?

Under my enhanced combat rules, I've stived to maintain a balance between keeping the game deadly (and players respecting gun combat) without making the game so realistic that no gun fights ever occur.

So, under my system, autofire is deadly indeed.

An attacker, using a fully automatic weapon, and the Panic Fire rule can fire his weapon up to three times during the 15 second combat round if he takes a -2DM penalty to hit on each of his shots (so, he needs a base 10+ to hit instead of an 8+). Now, since autofire for small arms allows two attack throws, this represents six attack throws under my system (a virtual sea of lead sprayed at the opponent).

There's a couple of negatives, to doing this, though.

(1) It eats up a lot of ammo, and PC's and NPC's don't carry a limited supply (the encumbrance rules are fairly restrictive...especially if on a high G planet).

(2) Under my system, Random Damage is what hurts. Damage that isn't applied randomly is just bruise damage--it can still kill you, but unlikely. In order to get Random Damage, you've got to roll high (at least 10+ for 1 damage die, 12+ for two, and so on). So, the Panic Fire penalty not only makes it harder to hit, it also makes it harder to apply wound damage on a target. You get a lot more chances (six attacks!), but each attack is harder to achieve over a single shot.

You'll have to peruse my enhanced combat rules to get the full flavor.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by weasel fierce:
So when multiple dice of damage are rolled, and its not the first hit, the dice are distributed as the player sees fit, between the stats.

Correct. If it's not the first hit. (Under official CT rules.)

For say, a carbine doing 4D6-8, how would this work precisely ?

Where'd you get the "-8" from? First edition CT? Or, is that from Striker? Or, are you talking about my enhanced CT system where "-8" damage is possible?

If First edition, the rules never really said how to handle that. I assume it's defender's choice.

If you're talking about Striker, then dice won't be allocated. You'll roll on a chart that will give you the wound level.

If you're talking about my enhanced CT combat system, then the "-8" would be defender's choice. And, my enhanced combat sytem uses random damage dice on every hit (if you roll high enough), so a defender would typically use that "-8" to reduce any random die against him first.

lets say I roll a 3, 4, 4, 6. Does the -8 take away a die, or could I get rid of both 4's or how does this actually play ?

If you're talking about official CT, there would be no "-8" on the damage throw (unless you've got a real old and rare first edition set of the rules).

Also, for high powered weapons, like gauss rifles, where autohits can occur a lot, do you guys change this (like using Striker) or just assume that modern firepower really bloody hurts unless you're wearing battle dress ?

Under my enhanced combat rules, I've stived to maintain a balance between keeping the game deadly (and players respecting gun combat) without making the game so realistic that no gun fights ever occur.

So, under my system, autofire is deadly indeed.

An attacker, using a fully automatic weapon, and the Panic Fire rule can fire his weapon up to three times during the 15 second combat round if he takes a -2DM penalty to hit on each of his shots (so, he needs a base 10+ to hit instead of an 8+). Now, since autofire for small arms allows two attack throws, this represents six attack throws under my system (a virtual sea of lead sprayed at the opponent).

There's a couple of negatives, to doing this, though.

(1) It eats up a lot of ammo, and PC's and NPC's don't carry a limited supply (the encumbrance rules are fairly restrictive...especially if on a high G planet).

(2) Under my system, Random Damage is what hurts. Damage that isn't applied randomly is just bruise damage--it can still kill you, but unlikely. In order to get Random Damage, you've got to roll high (at least 10+ for 1 damage die, 12+ for two, and so on). So, the Panic Fire penalty not only makes it harder to hit, it also makes it harder to apply wound damage on a target. You get a lot more chances (six attacks!), but each attack is harder to achieve over a single shot.

You'll have to peruse my enhanced combat rules to get the full flavor.

-S4

 

[weasel fierce]

yeah, I have the first edition. Carbine's are listed as 4D -8. I guess you could go the easy option and just do 2D6, though the damage, as printed, gives a fair chance of no damage inflicted (I get the impression of an M1 carbine, rather than the examples given in the book)

Im throwing a lot of options back and forth in my head, but I have resolved to run the first couple of sessions, once we get playing, as much by the book as at all possible, before we start messing around with things

 

[weasel fierce]

yeah, I have the first edition. Carbine's are listed as 4D -8. I guess you could go the easy option and just do 2D6, though the damage, as printed, gives a fair chance of no damage inflicted (I get the impression of an M1 carbine, rather than the examples given in the book)

Im throwing a lot of options back and forth in my head, but I have resolved to run the first couple of sessions, once we get playing, as much by the book as at all possible, before we start messing around with things

 

[atpollard]

The 1981 edition of Book 1 and the 1982 "The Traveller Book" dropped the -8 completely (in fact none of the weapons have negative modifiers to damage). The damage for a Laser Carbine is 4D6 and a Laser Rifle is 5D6.

The most even way to assign the -8 would be to assign -2 to each of the D6 rolled before applying them to an attribute, so a laser carbine would actually be treated as 4 x (d6-2). In he end, you are the Referee, whatever you decide is, by definition, the "correct" answer.

 

[atpollard]

The 1981 edition of Book 1 and the 1982 "The Traveller Book" dropped the -8 completely (in fact none of the weapons have negative modifiers to damage). The damage for a Laser Carbine is 4D6 and a Laser Rifle is 5D6.

The most even way to assign the -8 would be to assign -2 to each of the D6 rolled before applying them to an attribute, so a laser carbine would actually be treated as 4 x (d6-2). In he end, you are the Referee, whatever you decide is, by definition, the "correct" answer.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by weasel fierce:
yeah, I have the first edition. Carbine's are listed as 4D -8.

You could always get someone to list the weapons in Book 1 with the second edition (much more accepted) damage values. Then, you won't have that problem.

I considered using 1st ed. damage values for a while until someone pointed out that they were broken in some areas (I can't remember what was broken--just that I was in agreement that they were broken).

So, like most of the CT users out there, I use CT 2nd ed. damage values (that use only whole dice).

Most of your rifles and pistols do 3D damage (although the DM charts are varied at range and vs armror, making each weapon different). Some powerful weapons do 4D damage, like the shotgun (but gets big negatives at range).

Im throwing a lot of options back and forth in my head, but I have resolved to run the first couple of sessions, once we get playing, as much by the book as at all possible, before we start messing around with things

Always, always a good plan. Play it straight for a while, then, if something needs changing, change it.

That's what I do as well. I like to play straight by the book as much as possible.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by weasel fierce:
yeah, I have the first edition. Carbine's are listed as 4D -8.

You could always get someone to list the weapons in Book 1 with the second edition (much more accepted) damage values. Then, you won't have that problem.

I considered using 1st ed. damage values for a while until someone pointed out that they were broken in some areas (I can't remember what was broken--just that I was in agreement that they were broken).

So, like most of the CT users out there, I use CT 2nd ed. damage values (that use only whole dice).

Most of your rifles and pistols do 3D damage (although the DM charts are varied at range and vs armror, making each weapon different). Some powerful weapons do 4D damage, like the shotgun (but gets big negatives at range).

Im throwing a lot of options back and forth in my head, but I have resolved to run the first couple of sessions, once we get playing, as much by the book as at all possible, before we start messing around with things

Always, always a good plan. Play it straight for a while, then, if something needs changing, change it.

That's what I do as well. I like to play straight by the book as much as possible.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Weasel,

You know about THIS, yes?

It's a task system designed specifically for Classic Traveller. Since CT doesn't have one, and you're about to embark on the great Traveller campaign, I wanted to at least bring it to your attention.

Also, if you have a copy of The Traveller Adventure, there's an excellent write up in the beginning of that adventure module that covers how a GM should think about creating throws in CT. It should have been in the main rules--but in the TTA is where it is.

Good stuff.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Weasel,

You know about THIS, yes?

It's a task system designed specifically for Classic Traveller. Since CT doesn't have one, and you're about to embark on the great Traveller campaign, I wanted to at least bring it to your attention.

Also, if you have a copy of The Traveller Adventure, there's an excellent write up in the beginning of that adventure module that covers how a GM should think about creating throws in CT. It should have been in the main rules--but in the TTA is where it is.

Good stuff.

-S4

 

[weasel fierce]

I'll look for that, definately. We ran a long AD&D 1st edition campaign, almost completely by the book not too long ago, so Im not adverse to making up throws as we go along. I may end up using the task system from MT, but possibly making the stat bonus +1 per 4 points instead of 5.

 

[weasel fierce]

I'll look for that, definately. We ran a long AD&D 1st edition campaign, almost completely by the book not too long ago, so Im not adverse to making up throws as we go along. I may end up using the task system from MT, but possibly making the stat bonus +1 per 4 points instead of 5.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by weasel fierce:
I may end up using the task system from MT, but possibly making the stat bonus +1 per 4 points instead of 5.

You may or may not know that DGP wrote the MT task system (called the UTP: Universal Task Profile) originally for CT. Then, it was imported into MT when GDW hired DGP to write the MT rules.

The UTP is a good task system. It's a very good, old work horse. Many people love it.

The UGM is a better task system for CT, for many reasons (and I'm not just saying that because I wrote it...I actually believe it.).

Look at the chart in the UGM thread. If you have a Stat-5, you're rolling with different results than if you have a Stat-9. That gives an edge to the guy with the Stat that is 4 points higher.

The UTP, of course, doesn't give you this. A character with Stat-5 gets the same benefit as a character with Stat-9. Under the UGM, each and every stat provides a different benefit--you don't get those "benefit lumps" like you with with the UTP (or any Stat/X system).

Also, the UGM can exactly replicate throws written in Classic Traveller publications. The UTP can't do that.

The UGM skews Critical Success so that CS is easier to achieve on easier tasks--harder to achieve on harder tasks. Also, CS is easier the more skilled a character is. The reverse is true for Critical Failure. The UGM skews CF so that it is easier to avoid when the task difficulty is easy, and harder to avoid as the task difficulty gets harder. Higher expertise (skill) will also help a character avoid a Critical Failure.

Under the UTP (MT system), CS and CF are a blanket percentage for everyone, regardless of task difficulty or how skilled a person is.

BTW, the UGM provides (in most cases) the exact same percentage chance of success as the UTP when the task difficulty is the same (EASY, ROUTINE, DIFFICULT, FORMIDABLE, and IMPOSSIBLE tasks will give you the same chance of success whether you use the UTP or the UGM). I wrote the UGM this way so that it can be easily used with a MT supplement.

Also, in CT, typically, a character will get a +1DM for making a stat requirement for a task roll. The UGM is written to mirror this (like I said, the UGM is specifically designed for CT), where as the UTP can provide up to a +3DM (Stat-15/5) for stats.

If you go with the Stat/4 idea, you'll make this problem even worse. Many people who've modded the UTP go with a Stat/3 system, which, again, allows for up to a whopping +5DM. Doing this greatly overweights stats, because were're talking about a 2D6 system. +5 is incredible. Heck, +3 is a pretty amazing DM. That's why you see CT, most of the time, providing only a +1.

Those Stat/5, Stat/4, Stat/3 systems tend to give more punch to a character's stat at the expense of the punch provided by skill and expertise (meaning, stats are overweighted).

For example, let's say you've got Skill-2 and Stat-12.

Under each system, you'll get a +2 for skill.

Under CT, you might get a +1 if your Stat is 9+ (and a -1 if your Stat is 5-). So, you're rolling 2D +3. (+2 for Skill, +1 for Stat).

Under the UTP, you'll get a +2 with Stat-12. So, you're rolling 2D +4. (And here, the weight of the skill no longer dominates. The stat is equalized, with both providing +2 each to the roll.)

Under UTP with Stat/4, you'll get a +3 with Stat-12. Now, you're rolling 2D +5. (More weight to the stats: +2 for skill, and +3 for stat.)

Under the UTP with Stat/3, it's even worse with a +4 for a Stat-12. You're rolling 2D +6. (Skill still gives you +2, but stat gives you twice as much benefit with +4. Stat is getting out of hand.)

The UGM, though, provides a task system that weights stats as they are typically weighted in CT. Under the UGM, if you have Skill-2 and Stat-12, you'll be rolling 2D +3, just like you would under standard CT rules.

Give the UGM a good, hard looksee. There's a lot there under the hood that may not be evident to the casual eye.

-S4
(helping Weasel grok)

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by weasel fierce:
I may end up using the task system from MT, but possibly making the stat bonus +1 per 4 points instead of 5.

You may or may not know that DGP wrote the MT task system (called the UTP: Universal Task Profile) originally for CT. Then, it was imported into MT when GDW hired DGP to write the MT rules.

The UTP is a good task system. It's a very good, old work horse. Many people love it.

The UGM is a better task system for CT, for many reasons (and I'm not just saying that because I wrote it...I actually believe it.).

Look at the chart in the UGM thread. If you have a Stat-5, you're rolling with different results than if you have a Stat-9. That gives an edge to the guy with the Stat that is 4 points higher.

The UTP, of course, doesn't give you this. A character with Stat-5 gets the same benefit as a character with Stat-9. Under the UGM, each and every stat provides a different benefit--you don't get those "benefit lumps" like you with with the UTP (or any Stat/X system).

Also, the UGM can exactly replicate throws written in Classic Traveller publications. The UTP can't do that.

The UGM skews Critical Success so that CS is easier to achieve on easier tasks--harder to achieve on harder tasks. Also, CS is easier the more skilled a character is. The reverse is true for Critical Failure. The UGM skews CF so that it is easier to avoid when the task difficulty is easy, and harder to avoid as the task difficulty gets harder. Higher expertise (skill) will also help a character avoid a Critical Failure.

Under the UTP (MT system), CS and CF are a blanket percentage for everyone, regardless of task difficulty or how skilled a person is.

BTW, the UGM provides (in most cases) the exact same percentage chance of success as the UTP when the task difficulty is the same (EASY, ROUTINE, DIFFICULT, FORMIDABLE, and IMPOSSIBLE tasks will give you the same chance of success whether you use the UTP or the UGM). I wrote the UGM this way so that it can be easily used with a MT supplement.

Also, in CT, typically, a character will get a +1DM for making a stat requirement for a task roll. The UGM is written to mirror this (like I said, the UGM is specifically designed for CT), where as the UTP can provide up to a +3DM (Stat-15/5) for stats.

If you go with the Stat/4 idea, you'll make this problem even worse. Many people who've modded the UTP go with a Stat/3 system, which, again, allows for up to a whopping +5DM. Doing this greatly overweights stats, because were're talking about a 2D6 system. +5 is incredible. Heck, +3 is a pretty amazing DM. That's why you see CT, most of the time, providing only a +1.

Those Stat/5, Stat/4, Stat/3 systems tend to give more punch to a character's stat at the expense of the punch provided by skill and expertise (meaning, stats are overweighted).

For example, let's say you've got Skill-2 and Stat-12.

Under each system, you'll get a +2 for skill.

Under CT, you might get a +1 if your Stat is 9+ (and a -1 if your Stat is 5-). So, you're rolling 2D +3. (+2 for Skill, +1 for Stat).

Under the UTP, you'll get a +2 with Stat-12. So, you're rolling 2D +4. (And here, the weight of the skill no longer dominates. The stat is equalized, with both providing +2 each to the roll.)

Under UTP with Stat/4, you'll get a +3 with Stat-12. Now, you're rolling 2D +5. (More weight to the stats: +2 for skill, and +3 for stat.)

Under the UTP with Stat/3, it's even worse with a +4 for a Stat-12. You're rolling 2D +6. (Skill still gives you +2, but stat gives you twice as much benefit with +4. Stat is getting out of hand.)

The UGM, though, provides a task system that weights stats as they are typically weighted in CT. Under the UGM, if you have Skill-2 and Stat-12, you'll be rolling 2D +3, just like you would under standard CT rules.

Give the UGM a good, hard looksee. There's a lot there under the hood that may not be evident to the casual eye.

-S4
(helping Weasel grok)

 

[weasel fierce]

I read through your task system a while back, and I really liked it as well. It seems to be a little less grainy, but I'll have to play around with both.

Actually, what I think we will do is sit down and discuss the three approaches (make stuff up, UTP and UGM) roll some rolls and see what we end up preferring. Or even try each of them for a session or two.

Thanks!

 

[weasel fierce]

I read through your task system a while back, and I really liked it as well. It seems to be a little less grainy, but I'll have to play around with both.

Actually, what I think we will do is sit down and discuss the three approaches (make stuff up, UTP and UGM) roll some rolls and see what we end up preferring. Or even try each of them for a session or two.

Thanks!