RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
A Skill Check <> a Saving Throw (which are only Fort, Ref, and Will rolls).
You typically cannot "take 10" in situations that would require the above roll.
Also, doesn't the Agility of the vessel factor into the roll?
Sane Starship combat rules for T20.
- Thread starter BetterThanLife
- Start date
Also, doesn't the Agility of the vessel factor into the roll?
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I think I'm going to decide against "Saving Throws for Starships", it creates too many problems and too many questions.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
A Skill Check <> a Saving Throw (which are only Fort, Ref, and Will rolls).</font>[/QUOTE]But a Starship has no Fortitude, Reflexes or Willpower.
You typically cannot "take 10" in situations that would require the above roll.
Also, doesn't the Agility of the vessel factor into the roll? </font>[/QUOTE]PMOS allows you to Take 10 with the skill regardless of circumstances. Granted it is with the one skill you specified. (Hence Primary Military Occupational Speciality.) But that means your roll is a 10 and total score is 35 not 35 plus a roll.
The actual benefit reads: "Select one Skill as PMOS. Whenever using this skill, the character may always elect to Take 10, even in situations where they normally could not."
And the Description of the Ace Evasion has no mention of Vessel Agility. (So yes you get to use it even with your overloaded, over gunned 0 Agility, 1G Maneuver, Free Trader.)
However to be a 7th Level Ace Pilot you must be at least a 12th level character because to qualify you have to have pilot 8 which means you have to be 5th level before you can multiclass into Ace Pilot. (You still can't dodge a Spinal Meson.
)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The idea I had is to use the saving throw mechanic, not the Reflex, Will, Fortitude rolls that characters get (although for an AI infested ship... ).
Save versus meson fire could be based on meson screen, configuration, maybe agility and computer model as well.
Target number could be the meson gun factor plus computer model, or some such derived number.
Make the save and take no damage, miss the save
This would be closer to the High Guard combat resolution.
A similar system could work for nuclear dampers versus nuclear missiles, and since the detonation laser nuke has been adopted then the defence of turret mounted nuclear dampers or repulsors should have also made it to T20.
Speaking of repulsors, they could also offer a ship a save versus missiles, and sandcasters could save against lasers etc.
The problem with T20 ship combat IMHO, is that it is based on High Guard combat factors, which only pay lip service to an individual's skills, rather than the character level combat of LBB2 where a charaacters skills were an important factor in the resolution.
Try including the computer program effects in T20 ship combat, as well as all the skill bonuses and feats etc. and you end up with a very confused system.
But then, this thread is about re-writing the rules to make a better system, isn't it
Here's another thought.
Should ship combat be split up into different scales the way that the rules currently do with personal/vehicle/ship?
Ships from 10-1000 tons could be handled as "personal scale", 1000 - 10,000 as "vehicle scale" and 10,000+ as "ship scale" - if you see what I mean?
).Save versus meson fire could be based on meson screen, configuration, maybe agility and computer model as well.
Target number could be the meson gun factor plus computer model, or some such derived number.
Make the save and take no damage, miss the save
This would be closer to the High Guard combat resolution.
A similar system could work for nuclear dampers versus nuclear missiles, and since the detonation laser nuke has been adopted then the defence of turret mounted nuclear dampers or repulsors should have also made it to T20.
Speaking of repulsors, they could also offer a ship a save versus missiles, and sandcasters could save against lasers etc.
The problem with T20 ship combat IMHO, is that it is based on High Guard combat factors, which only pay lip service to an individual's skills, rather than the character level combat of LBB2 where a charaacters skills were an important factor in the resolution.
Try including the computer program effects in T20 ship combat, as well as all the skill bonuses and feats etc. and you end up with a very confused system.
But then, this thread is about re-writing the rules to make a better system, isn't it
Here's another thought.
Should ship combat be split up into different scales the way that the rules currently do with personal/vehicle/ship?
Ships from 10-1000 tons could be handled as "personal scale", 1000 - 10,000 as "vehicle scale" and 10,000+ as "ship scale" - if you see what I mean?
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Which is one of the reasons I've decided against pursuit of using Saving Throws on starships.Originally posted by Bhoins:
But a Starship has no Fortitude, Reflexes or Willpower.
Oops.
Well, I'd rather roll. What are we doing in this if not to roll all these d@@@ably expensive dice?
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Which is one of the reasons I've decided against pursuit of using Saving Throws on starships.Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
But a Starship has no Fortitude, Reflexes or Willpower.
Oops.
Well, I'd rather roll. What are we doing in this if not to roll all these d@@@ably expensive dice?
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
It has promise. The problem is, except for Spinals, they all have access to the same weapons. A Factor 9 laser battery on a 1000 ton ship hits just as hard as a factor 9 laser battery on a 500,000 ship. A Decent Spinal can be mounted on a ship as small as 5000 Tons. (Provided you are building a monitor instead of a starship.) So how do you scale it?
Half the basis for the scaling is that an FGMP-15 doesn't hit as hard or use as much power as a RFY-15 which isn't as powerful as a Single Fusion Turret on a starship.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I seem to recall someone over on the TML did a 2000 dTon vessel that mounted one weapon, one of the 1000 dTon meson spinal mounts.
Blast it! My Google-Fu is not working right at the momment, I can't find it.
It was more like titan-sized fighter with carrier than mini-rider w/tender. They were intended to swarm larger ships.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I seem to recall someone over on the TML did a 2000 dTon vessel that mounted one weapon, one of the 1000 dTon meson spinal mounts.
Blast it! My Google-Fu is not working right at the momment, I can't find it.
It was more like titan-sized fighter with carrier than mini-rider w/tender. They were intended to swarm larger ships. </font>[/QUOTE]The 5000T LAC I built worked out very nicely. I t is fairly survivable. 30 of them cost the same as 6 typical 30,000T Battle Riders. (Though 36 fit on the same tender as the 6 30,000T Battleriders.) Under current T20 rules a single tender equipped with these can maul a fleet of virtually any size in one highspeed pass.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
That would be broken, then.
As I'd noted the other day, I'm of the opinion that the spinals, and perhaps the other weapons, in T20 suffer from insufficient translation from their admitted inspirational base, High Guard.
Consider that in HG, a Factor 1 Meson Screen was complete protection against Factor 7 Meson fire, assuming the opposing computers were equal...
As I'd noted the other day, I'm of the opinion that the spinals, and perhaps the other weapons, in T20 suffer from insufficient translation from their admitted inspirational base, High Guard.
Consider that in HG, a Factor 1 Meson Screen was complete protection against Factor 7 Meson fire, assuming the opposing computers were equal...
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
This is true. However at the other end of the spectrum, the end the typical Traveller Players are dealing with, the High Guard tables are too restrictive. Two typical fighters can't hit each other. Take two FH from Supp-9 or two FL from Supp-5. A Free Trader has a really rough time hitting anything. Typical HG space combat with smaller craft they are shooting all day long to get one hit.
So HG is broken at the other end.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It's not just High Guard that's broken for small ships.
If you don't borrow rules from Mayday then the standard book 2 fighter isn't much good either
If you don't borrow rules from Mayday then the standard book 2 fighter isn't much good either
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
My point in this is that it may not be the basic mechanics of combat that are broken in T20, but rather how the hardware maps into those mechanics.
In HG, the biggest meson spinal firing with the best computer at the most vulnerable target (largest target with the worst/no screen and the most vulnerable configuration, no agility and civilian computer), was hitting and going to the damage tables every time. No contest.
At the other end of capital targets, that same meson spinal firing at a fully defended, agile, equal computer, battleship in "the usual" configuration (needle/wedge) was only going to the damage tables for 5/12 x 5/6 x 35/36 = 33.8% of its shots at long range and 58.5% of its shots at close range. Nasty, but not every shot.
Drop the target into the Cruiser range and those numbers become 22.5% and 47.3%. In the Destroyer range it's 13.5% and 33.8%.
Are these numbers we can use for fleet combat? Certainly.
In a further mismatch, even the smallest Meson Bay will toast a far trader 92+% of the time, given typical computers and panic agility on the part of the A2. Frankly, that's as it should be. Military weapons and the threat of their use should *never* be taken lightly by merchants.
As for fighters vs fighters, the Squadron Battery effect (in TCS, I think) and Individual skills were typically the best bet to make those work, but HG really isn't aimed at that scale of combat. The other option in HG for such cases is to use the size modifier for both attacker and target, making the big guys easier targets for the little guys while making the fighters vulnerable to each other...
In HG, the biggest meson spinal firing with the best computer at the most vulnerable target (largest target with the worst/no screen and the most vulnerable configuration, no agility and civilian computer), was hitting and going to the damage tables every time. No contest.
At the other end of capital targets, that same meson spinal firing at a fully defended, agile, equal computer, battleship in "the usual" configuration (needle/wedge) was only going to the damage tables for 5/12 x 5/6 x 35/36 = 33.8% of its shots at long range and 58.5% of its shots at close range. Nasty, but not every shot.
Drop the target into the Cruiser range and those numbers become 22.5% and 47.3%. In the Destroyer range it's 13.5% and 33.8%.
Are these numbers we can use for fleet combat? Certainly.
In a further mismatch, even the smallest Meson Bay will toast a far trader 92+% of the time, given typical computers and panic agility on the part of the A2. Frankly, that's as it should be. Military weapons and the threat of their use should *never* be taken lightly by merchants.
As for fighters vs fighters, the Squadron Battery effect (in TCS, I think) and Individual skills were typically the best bet to make those work, but HG really isn't aimed at that scale of combat. The other option in HG for such cases is to use the size modifier for both attacker and target, making the big guys easier targets for the little guys while making the fighters vulnerable to each other...
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Ouch! Yes, I too believe that T20 starship combat needs some revision. And not just the mechanics. The organization of it, too.
EDIT-------------
Hey, Bhoins, post that Tender/LAC combo.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually the LAC is a slightly modified Seydlitz from TA-7. I posted it here once. I'll dig it up. The Tender, I just messed with the one I had from the High Guard CT days. (I'll dig that up too.)
I never really went into the TCS squadron rules.
I never really went into the TCS squadron rules.
Some comments (basically repeats from elsewhere) about how ship combat was playtested
When we worked on the combat rules, levels (and hence skill levels) were considerably lower; the XP per term was roughly half published rates. Ship Combat was HARD....; skill levels were about 3/5 current levels.
The 16 dice for spinals was originally a cap, rather than a flat rate; max 16 dice damage after armor, dice equal USP. This made the bigger spinals MUCH nastier.
AR was NOT added to AC. When skills went up, adding AR made sense...
With Big Guns getting to ignore huge sawthes of armor, the +5 threat range was really NASTY, but since it was harder to hit...
What would I do?
1: Ignore batteries for increasing damage. Instead, each 2 points by which the AC was exceeded is one extra weapon hitting. Roll one hit for the battery, and multiply result post-armor-reduction.
2: Delete the +5 CM for spinals.
3: damage by system SI, rather than damage by "critical" (IE, de-HG it! HG is BOGUS!!!!) and a single SI pool. No, you need SI pools per system type! (Early drafts had weapons damages in Tons of Damage. Great fun, but cumbersome.)
4: Delete the 16 dice rule. Yes, it means BIG guns do hideous amounts of damage. They should.
5: Active defenses add to AR (and thus AC) if they intercept. Semi-actives (Evasion, EM Jamming) add to AC only.
6: Double Agility when calculating AR vs Spinals.
7: limit PMOS to non-firing aspects of the skill, like maintenance, repair, and diagnostics, by redefining gunnery as a skill-based combat roll, rather than a skill roll.
8: Apply the bonus to be hit from size as a bonus to armor effectiveness for damage reduction. (IE, +2 to be hit due to size also counts as 2 extra dice of armor effect).
When we worked on the combat rules, levels (and hence skill levels) were considerably lower; the XP per term was roughly half published rates. Ship Combat was HARD....; skill levels were about 3/5 current levels.
The 16 dice for spinals was originally a cap, rather than a flat rate; max 16 dice damage after armor, dice equal USP. This made the bigger spinals MUCH nastier.
AR was NOT added to AC. When skills went up, adding AR made sense...
With Big Guns getting to ignore huge sawthes of armor, the +5 threat range was really NASTY, but since it was harder to hit...
What would I do?
1: Ignore batteries for increasing damage. Instead, each 2 points by which the AC was exceeded is one extra weapon hitting. Roll one hit for the battery, and multiply result post-armor-reduction.
2: Delete the +5 CM for spinals.
3: damage by system SI, rather than damage by "critical" (IE, de-HG it! HG is BOGUS!!!!) and a single SI pool. No, you need SI pools per system type! (Early drafts had weapons damages in Tons of Damage. Great fun, but cumbersome.)
4: Delete the 16 dice rule. Yes, it means BIG guns do hideous amounts of damage. They should.
5: Active defenses add to AR (and thus AC) if they intercept. Semi-actives (Evasion, EM Jamming) add to AC only.
6: Double Agility when calculating AR vs Spinals.
7: limit PMOS to non-firing aspects of the skill, like maintenance, repair, and diagnostics, by redefining gunnery as a skill-based combat roll, rather than a skill roll.
8: Apply the bonus to be hit from size as a bonus to armor effectiveness for damage reduction. (IE, +2 to be hit due to size also counts as 2 extra dice of armor effect).
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I understand the skill level problem.
I am not sure I am clear on 1. So basically if I hit with a TL-15 factor 9 Beam Laser Battery, I am doing 1D8, 4D8, or 9D8? (1D8 is one tube, 4D8 is one turret, 9D8 is the entire battery.) So is it 4D8, with an additional 4D8 for each +2 until I get to 9 additional turrets?
Number 3 has the same problem as earlier discussed. When getting critically hit by a Spinal Meson, you actually expect to have SI left to worry about systems? (Even at 15 it is still going to happen with great frequency.) It isn't a question of losing a system or having a system damaged, the ship as a whole is simply vaporized with a Crit hit.
Number 4, is already on my list, but it does quickly hit the point of dimishing returns. Spinal Meson's already do too much damage on a Crit, Anything over a factor 9 Meson is still going to kill everything.
Number 5 is interesting but I am not sure how to implement it. The only actual active defenses is point defense vs. Missiles, though an argument can be made for point defense Sand vs. lasers. And PD Sand already works that way. Lasers and repulsars vs. missiles are already better than that. They actually stop a hit. (Which makes sense.)
Number 6 and 7 I find difficult to justify, except as a Referee Fudge. An Agile ship is already more difficult to hit. The firing ship is going to use its agility to do its best to keep the nose on the target. (Perhaps adding in again the difference of agilities?) As for PMOS only applying to part of the skill? It has a similar effect to removing gunnery as a skill, but, feels more like a fudge. (Not saying it is any less or more of a fudge than my idea, just IMHO feels more like a fudge.)
Number 8 is interesting. It is easier to hit so should be able to soak up more? I like it. I am just not sure what the ramifications would be. I'll have to game that one.
Thanks Aramis.
You have me thinking again.
It means you'd be rolling 2d8 x (Lower of 30 or half the amount hit roll is made by). THis because a TL15 laser is inherently factor 2; it takes 30 of them to make a factor 9. THe big huge old laser in that 100 ton bay is inherently factor 9....
And I tend to roll once and do math, rather than do math then roll...
Oh, and each 2d8 should separately have armor applied....
I dislike the SI formulae. I understand why they are there, but I don't like them anyway.
6 is all about reducing the viability of spinals to hit. For a fighter or patrol craft to add 3-6 points of AC from Agility is a MAJOR boost.
7 is about requiring a roll for all to hits, no matter what, and expressing that in terms of the D20 system. Skill rolls are skill rolls. THey can have 10 taken. Combat rolls can't. I don't think hunter truly grasped that until AFTER it went to layout....
And to be honest, Hunter did a good job of running the playtest fairly and with an eye to making the product better. He's not as good as Greg Porter, but he's close. THe WFRP2 playtest was a joke... company reps of BI deleting posts of playtesters with negative reactions to rules issues, telling playtesters that the design team had no buisiness reading playtest boards, etc...
But Hunter and us playtesters missed some things. That a critical can shatter a hull was a design feature, not a missed bit. THe ballance point was set by Dr. Skull, pretty much.
You can make it less so by upping all the critical levels by 1, and making crits go through armor, or....
by making the multiplied damage go through armor, but the base hit doesn't.
I like to make people think. It's what makes me enjoy GMing...
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
It means you'd be rolling 2d8 x (Lower of 30 or half the amount hit roll is made by). THis because a TL15 laser is inherently factor 2; it takes 30 of them to make a factor 9. THe big huge old laser in that 100 ton bay is inherently factor 9....
And I tend to roll once and do math, rather than do math then roll...
Oh, and each 2d8 should separately have armor applied....
</font>[/QUOTE]Um . . .
Is that "2d8 x (lower of 30 or .5 x Success Margin on To-Hit Roll)"?
Where does the multiplier come from?
<sigh> I guess I don't understand T20 combat and damage rules well enough. Back to the drawing board.
RainOfSteel I think he was referring to the modification suggested above rather then vanilla rules.
Seems a bit odd to count the TL increase in weapon damage when it also increases USP. That would make the above example (Lower of (number of weapons)(TN excess/2))d8 rather then 2d8, which makes a little more sense. It does mean that a single turret is a non-threat weapon to anything armored, but that was pretty much the case anyway.
