Personal Combat: Damage and Armor Question

[BytePro]

I do not have T5. (As long as Marc's goal was met, I was happy to sit back and let wait till others take the new model out and kick the tires a bit...)

Like any technical book - it is best to read through several times, preferably taking one's mind off the subject matter between reads. Sure there are going to be mistakes. But, I suspect a lot of these first 'issues' are largely a matter of not interpreting things in the way they were meant to work. (Given the scope and level of detail - this would best probably include taking notes and charting...)

I do think it wise not to make the early playtests, and the like, public - that will just confuse people and give ammunition for beating dead horses for those who's pet notions were not included (pun intended).

It would, however, be very wise to officially publish - on the forums at least - examples of play.

 

[robject]

It would, however, be very wise to officially publish - on the forums at least - examples of play.

This.

Examples of everything.

 

[Reban]

See, I can't find it either, which is why I asked about it. As far as I can tell, there is no difference between a character taking Bullet, Frag, Pen, Burn, etc. damage. There's no obvious point to it, and so, IMO it should be removed. Call it "Hits" and be done with it, especially if we are supposed to combine dice to a total hit. (I still haven't found the rule in the text which specifically says THAT either.) I'm a little surprised that something this central to the game actually went to paper press so vague, confusing, and incomplete. The Protections make sense (Blind, Suff, etc.), shouldn't the hits as well?

There's merit to what you say about calling it all Hits and be done with it, but the point behind it as I see it is there are more ways to injure characters than just in Combat. Having different damage Effects allows me to model a character taking Burn and or Heat damage by rushing into a burning building. Or what happens when the T-Rex tries to break through the theme park fence (he suffers damage from Elec applied as Hits to C1 C2 and C3).

Like I mentioned above, you don't have to go into this detail while running combat, just use the V0 System.

 

[LiminalMask]

There's merit to what you say about calling it all Hits and be done with it, but the point behind it as I see it is there are more ways to injure characters than just in Combat. Having different damage Effects allows me to model a character taking Burn and or Heat damage by rushing into a burning building. Or what happens when the T-Rex tries to break through the theme park fence (he suffers damage from Elec applied as Hits to C1 C2 and C3).

Like I mentioned above, you don't have to go into this detail while running combat, just use the V0 System.

Sure. But tell me, when a character tries to jump a lava flow and misses, what difference does it make that he's taking Burn damage as opposed to Bullet? There's no provision for this difference that I can see, only the name. There's no practical difference in one of these damage types vs. another. And if there's no practical difference, why make things more complex by adding a bunch of names?

Now, Heat damage, on the other hand, DOES make a difference, because there's a specific kind of armor that resists Heat damage (Insulated)). That's spelled out in the rules, so it makes sense, it works. I'm not confused about the protections. It's all these damage types that hit "Armor" and yet have no specific way to differentiate. (Bullet, Blast, Frag, Pen, Burn, and a few more.)

Like, if we were to remove the exiting names... let's say you have a gun that does 2D Blue damage and 2D Green damage. You look in the rules, and it says that Blue and Green damage hit the same armor, do the same damage level, and are not resisted any differently. In short, there's no fundamental difference between Blue and Green damage as far as the rules are concerned, only that they're called "Blue" and "Green." Wouldn't you find the naming unnecessary and even confusing? Wouldn't you prefer to simplify it to just "damage" and call it a day?

Again, if I'm missing something, please point me to the rules that clarify.

 

[robject]

Like, if we were to remove the exiting names... let's say you have a gun that does 2D Blue damage and 2D Green damage. You look in the rules, and it says that Blue and Green damage hit the same armor, do the same damage level, and are not resisted any differently. In short, there's no fundamental difference between Blue and Green damage as far as the rules are concerned, only that they're called "Blue" and "Green." Wouldn't you find the naming unnecessary and even confusing? Wouldn't you prefer to simplify it to just "damage" and call it a day?

I would.

There is one possibility that you've inadvertently suggested to me: that "color" can have value in a game, even when it looks like clutter to me.

 

[Reban]

Sure. But tell me, when a character tries to jump a lava flow and misses, what difference does it make that he's taking Burn damage as opposed to Bullet? There's no provision for this difference that I can see, only the name. There's no practical difference in one of these damage types vs. another. And if there's no practical difference, why make things more complex by adding a bunch of names?

Well you've got me there. I was going to suggest that Bullet would result in a different Injury to Burn but from p222 I see that they both inflict Total Hits/2

There are 12 Effects that result in Hit damage, that is too many to add any useful mechanical difference.

The only thing I can say is that from a narrative point of view its easy to explain to a player what it means for his character to take damage from Bullet or Burn and have them react accordingly.

I'm not a fan of games that say "You've taken 10 Hits from your encounter with the Level 18 Barbarian. Use your Medipack +2 to heal". I'd rather have "The Barbarian's axe has slashed you open across the chest, have one of the other PCs staunch the blood (skill check first aid) while the Doctor prepares to sew the wound closed (skill check surgery)".

I think the utility of the Effects come when you can say "Sir Mortimor Urqheart KIT DSO MC was badly scarred across the left side of his face when he took a blast of Green in the Third Pacification War. He also walks with a limp after being hit with a Blue while tending his mother-in-laws roses".


One other thing occurs to me; Using ThingMaker and other sections could you develop counter measures against different Effect types that come into play before they hit Armor. Like a coating that only deflects Corrode but has no effect on Bullet or Pen etc.?

 

[Dracous]

First impressions

Hi all.
Reading this thread, I get the impression that T5 rules are a bit complicated, and also a bit messy.
I was thinking about a purchase, but it sounds like it is broken at a fundamental level (cloth armour rendering a character invulnerable....hmmm).

Will continue to read this forum to see what else is being found.

 

[SmilingKnight]

Sure. But tell me, when a character tries to jump a lava flow and misses, what difference does it make that he's taking Burn damage as opposed to Bullet? There's no provision for this difference that I can see, only the name. There's no practical difference in one of these damage types vs. another. And if there's no practical difference, why make things more complex by adding a bunch of names?

Now, Heat damage, on the other hand, DOES make a difference, because there's a specific kind of armor that resists Heat damage (Insulated)). That's spelled out in the rules, so it makes sense, it works. I'm not confused about the protections. It's all these damage types that hit "Armor" and yet have no specific way to differentiate. (Bullet, Blast, Frag, Pen, Burn, and a few more.)

Like, if we were to remove the exiting names... let's say you have a gun that does 2D Blue damage and 2D Green damage. You look in the rules, and it says that Blue and Green damage hit the same armor, do the same damage level, and are not resisted any differently. In short, there's no fundamental difference between Blue and Green damage as far as the rules are concerned, only that they're called "Blue" and "Green." Wouldn't you find the naming unnecessary and even confusing? Wouldn't you prefer to simplify it to just "damage" and call it a day?

Again, if I'm missing something, please point me to the rules that clarify.

Are the different damage healed through different means? I don't have my book yet, but that could be it. A bullet needs to be removed, while you can just start sewing up a knife wound and frag damage means you have to go find his fingers before reattaching them

 

[Murdoc]

Sure. But tell me, when a character tries to jump a lava flow and misses, what difference does it make that he's taking Burn damage as opposed to Bullet? There's no provision for this difference that I can see, only the name. There's no practical difference in one of these damage types vs. another. And if there's no practical difference, why make things more complex by adding a bunch of names?

Sure there's no difference now, I just think that there are rules missing, which I hope will be addressed in an upcoming errata or supplement. Until then, I'll work on house ruling myself, because I like there being a difference. I like how heat benchmarks for instance can get used for calculating re-entry damage. As for your example, maybe not much difference in a lava flow, but how about a flame-thrower? I can see some big differences there, like setting me (and/or my clothes) on fire, continuous damage for x rounds. Also, it might matter to the medic, depending on how those rules work (or maybe just what supplies are needed).

 

[Shadowfax]

Not impressed

I like a lot of the new ideas in T5, but a lot of them seem to be way too generic at least at first glance. At least they corrected the spelling errors that were carried over from CT into other versions.

 

[Shadowfax]

combat rules

We always used a CT & Striker mix. Armor Values, ranges, penetration and NPC-wounds all done striker-style, hit locations, group hits by auto-fires, damage to PCs and arbitrary rulings by the referee CT-style.

Phoenix command had probably the most realistic combat system, but it was just no fun to play, because of the time spent calculating mods and sifting through pages of combat effects tables. A system like twilight 2000 wasn't too bad if I remember right.

The rules have to be simple, so the game can flow. The gory details are up to the referee to add or not.

 

[LiminalMask]

The only thing I can say is that from a narrative point of view its easy to explain to a player what it means for his character to take damage from Bullet or Burn and have them react accordingly.

And sure, there's value in description. But you don't need the rules to tell you that getting shot with a laser is going to leave a burn scar. The Ref and players can add their own color.

One other thing occurs to me; Using ThingMaker and other sections could you develop counter measures against different Effect types that come into play before they hit Armor. Like a coating that only deflects Corrode but has no effect on Bullet or Pen etc.?

This has some merit as an idea. I haven't played with ThingMaker much yet, so it may be possible. My biggest concern would be why relegate this ability to mitigate damage types to ThingMaker, and not put it in ArmorMaker, where you're making, you know, Armor, which mitigates damage.

Are the different damage healed through different means?

No, not that I've found. In fact, the whole concept of wounding is pretty vague. There are rules for determining where a character is wounded, the severity of that wound, a doctor's task in diagnosing and healing the wound... but it doesn't actually say what effect a wound HAS on a character.

Sure there's no difference now, I just think that there are rules missing, which I hope will be addressed in an upcoming errata or supplement. Until then, I'll work on house ruling myself, because I like there being a difference. I like how heat benchmarks for instance can get used for calculating re-entry damage. As for your example, maybe not much difference in a lava flow, but how about a flame-thrower?

Incidentally, the "HPj-9" Fire Projector (Flamethrower) does a base of Burn-2, Pen-1 on its lowest setting. So, no Heat damage there, either.

I don't mind there being different types. I actually like the idea of different types. But they should have a purpose. All I'm really asking for in this thread is clarity.

Speaking of clarity, let me ask this again:

Can anyone tell me the page number in the rule book which says whether you should combine damage rolls or roll them separately? (I.e., is a Bullet-2, Blast-2 weapon doing two 2D hits, or one 4D hit?) I can't find it, and this makes a big difference into whether armor is overpowered or not.

 

[fridge]

Speaking of clarity, let me ask this again:

Can anyone tell me the page number in the rule book which says whether you should combine damage rolls or roll them separately? (I.e., is a Bullet-2, Blast-2 weapon doing two 2D hits, or one 4D hit?) I can't find it, and this makes a big difference into whether armor is overpowered or not.

Closest I can find is on page 225

"Protection is in points. If, in a single attack, Hits exceed Protection, the excess is applied as Damage to the target."

Note it says single attack not single Effect or single Hit. This strongly implies to me that the rolls against the different protections are combined, all those affecting Armor are combined, all those affecting Ins are combined, etc.

Note though that
- there are no examples with different Effects that must penetrate armour given
- page 214 has examples of armour and insulation being affected but ths being rolled separately. Ths makes sense as they are different protections that must be overcome
- you need to be careful to separate out some of the Effects as they do actually effect the target differently eg Slash is hits per turn, Pain is unconsciousness. This raises a further question on priority order of applying Hits to Protections then the target, where it matters. Does Pen get applied first then Slash?

Agree the intention needs to be more clearly stated.

I think the armor/damage effect system has great unrealized potential. For example, Corrode - needs options in armor maker for anti-corrosive coatings which provide special additional protection against corrosive attacks, whether it be a weapon attack (acid thrower), or environmental conditions eg gunfight in an acid factory/ corrosive atmosphere.

 

[LordRhys]

Based on the combat examples on page 214 and the very few examples of weaponry given on page 240 along with what I can derive from the GunMaker section, it looks like it's neary impossible to make a man portable weapon that can penetrate even the weakest Battle Dress.

The PGMP-11 which is the only hi-energy weapon that we have an example of won't even come close to penetrating that level of armor.

 

[Shadowfax]

T5

TIH

 

[LordRhys]

At the top of page 220 it seems to imply that you combine weapon effects versus Armor to create Injury and compare THAT with the Armor Value to determine penetration.

Unfortunately even that isn't perfectly clear.

Personally I'm combining them because that's the only way to have a reasonable chance of penetrating Armor.

Armor is very powerful compared to weapons and some sort of rules modification needs to address this.

If you design a basic FGMP-13 it would only do 10D with an average of 35 Hits and a maximum of 60 Hits, and that's ONLY if you combine the Damage (Pen-6, Burn-4). Battle Dress-13 has an AV of 45, so even an FGMP-13 is unlikely to penetrate BD-13.

And if you do manage to penetrate armor, suddenly that super-protective armor becomes entirely useless no matter what you penetrate it with, seems a bit extreme.

Personally I'm going with the AV only in a specific hit location being affected, and I'm only halving (Round down) the AV in that location rather than destroying it. I'll need a called shot rule so that snipers can take advantage of the weakened locations, but that should be easy to implement. (+1D for Torso, +2D for Limbs, +3D for Head?).

The overpowered armor could possibly be addressed by adding Armor-Piercing Ammo rules. I kind of like an approach similar to MgT, Long Guns and Machineguns would normally ignore 1/2 their number of Dice in AV and using AP ammo would boost that to 1 point per Die. Pistols and Sub-Machineguns would normally have no bonus and using AP ammo would raise that to 1/2 point per die. Gauss Pistols and Sub-Machineguns would treated just like Long Guns, and Gauss Long Guns would receive a 50% bonus at both AP levels. As far as Energy Weapons go, I would give lasers 1/2 # of Dice AP bonus, Plasma 1 x # of Dice AP bonus, and Fusion 1.5 x # of Dice AP bonus with no increases allowed.

 

[Dragoner]

One thing I tried was with Pen as a modifer, so that for example, Pen-2 becomes 2x damage versus armor; an attribute I also added to ammo, so that my TL 15 Advanced Gauss Rifle had Pen-2, Bullet-4 for it's ammo, for example.

 

[LordRhys]

I think that all PEN means is that certain weapons have an effect on armor beyond their other effects.

I like the idea of making PEN weapons ignore 2x D of Armor Value, since it's simpler than my idea, yet would give good results.

This would mean that an FGMP-13 would ignore 12 points of Armor (Pen-6), while a Laser Rifle or Pistol would ignore only 4 points (Pen-2).

But I would still use my AP ammo rules for weapons that use Bullets. This would require users to buy special ammo that would be more expensive and harder to obtain etc..

This would mean that a Gauss Rifle-12 would ignore 3 points of AV normally and 7 points with more difficult to obtain AP ammo.

I think I'll try a variation of your PEN idea and my AP Ammo Rules and see how that works out.

 

[Shadowfax]

Armor and penetration

All I can say is that it is always cheaper and easier to make a weapon that will penetrate or otherwise defeat armor than it is to make armor that is impervious.

That having been said having armor that is a couple of tech levels superior to the weapons that your foes have does make the game interesting. For one you can do things that a normal soldier wouldn't be able to do as well, like fight against an enemy with numerical superiority and win.

I think armor in traveller serves a useful role in keeping characters alive. Not very realistic perhaps, but a lot of fun. = )

"-aw look at me, I'm Ramblin again"

 

[Dagrill]

You're right about the Cage figures for the Basic Armors. They seem way too high compared to the other armors, helmets etc. (I see no reason why TL6 Plate should have Ca=22. Any Medieval knight you could zap should fry easily!)

Hi,

Are you sure, have you seen test evidence?

Just thinking about the recent programme I was watching about Richard III's body and the amount of wounds it took to bring him down.

Kind regards

David