T20 -- Plasma Weapon Ranges

[RainOfSteel]

CT:Book 4, p. 37-38, lists the ranges of the plasma weapons as follows.

</font>

• PGMP-12: 750m</font>
• PGMP-13: 1000m</font>
• PGMP-14: 1000m</font>
• FGMP-14: 1500m</font>
• FGMP-15: 1500m</font>

The T20 THB lists the d20 Range Increments as

</font>

• PGMP-12: 24m</font>
• PGMP-13: 36m</font>
• PGMP-14: 36m</font>
• FGMP-14: 45m</font>
• FGMP-15: 45m</font>

The plasma weapons are among the highest range direct fire personal weapons of Traveller, and yet, T20 seems to reverse this.

For the FGMPs, TL-14 & 15 weapons: if we divide 1500m by the 45m Range Increment, that's 33.33, or -33 To-Hit. The description for the plasma weapons also say that damage is 1/4 beyond Range Increment 8. That's 360m. At only 1/5 total CT range, T20 plasma weapons are already doing 1/4 damage.

The CT guass rifle gets a 1260m range, and yet it's T20 Range Increment is 96m.

Does this represent a fundamental shift in the way plasma weapons are being handled for range in Traveller? Are plasma weapons just shorter-range now?

 

[far-trader]

Edited for my damage goof.

Yes I think all the weapons got a major rethink to bring them more into line with the d20 mechanic and the later CT weapon ranges (TNE for example). Some would call the ranges more realistic. It is still a simplification to arrive at an easy game mechanic to simulate a lot of variables that no one wants slowing down the game.

For the examples above they don't quite work the way I understand T20. The FGMP-15 with a range increment of 45m has a maximum theoretical range of 450m. However with the -2 to hit per increment added to the base, that'll be -18 to hit.

Plasma and fusion weapons should always have been short range imo. They are for taking out light vehicles at close range not attacking infantry.

All that said I do have some problems with some of the range increments selected.

 

[veltyen]

Far-trader,
Where did you get the -1 die per range increment from? It sounds familiar but I can't find it anywhere.

The gauss rifle is about right. The maximum useable range is 10* the range increment. Therefore the Gauss Rifle in grunt hands has a range of 960m. A snipers Gauss rifle (including a telescopic sight, and the sniper having the feat "far shot", not a big ask in a veteran marine for example) has a range three times that.

Far-trader's point that at maximum range the -18 to hit will result in a difficult target. Even a good shot (veteran marine with HUD) only has a AB of around +15.

 

[far-trader]

Oops, my bad on the die reduction for range. Reading too far down the page and not realizing I had strayed from personal weapons into starship weapons

To be honest I've read that bit a few times and only noticed when you asked. But it had always kind of made me wonder.

 

[veltyen]

Checking pg 154 of the 1st Ed THB it does indeed say that, underneath the heading "Personel and vehicle sensors and communication ranges".

Not mentioned elsewhere, and I'd consider it a surprising rule. Especially since it turns rifles into extremely short range weapons. Contrasdicts the plasma/fusion damage reduction rules, and isn't mentioned either way in the errata.

 

[far-trader]

Yep that's the place. I was happier in my delusion that all weapons were treated consistently (hadn't really noticed the specific plasma/fusion text) even if it seemed a bit silly to me. Now I just dislike the reduction being applied to starship weapons. Why should one model apply to big weapons (ships) and another to small weapons (personal and vehicle), especially when there are rules for scaling between them. I haven't checked the numbers but I suspect that using the range damage reduction when converting between scales is going to produce some silly results now.

As for it not being mentioned elsewhere or in errata, well that doesn't surprise me or help. Note the heading, "Communication and Sensors" and it talks about "weapons" only. That is obviously errata but it's not in the file. What's more there is errata that was reported in the forums and some even commented on by Hunter that didn't make it into the errata file.

I'd love one of the insiders to answer on why it was done. For example what is the rationalization that a missile loses explosive force (damage) as it flies further down range?

If the answer is it's an abstraction then that should apply to all weapons. And why do plasma and fusion weapons have that damage reduction? Because the blob rapidly loses containment and therefore damage potential? What about lasers then? They lose beam concentration over range due to divergence and atmosphere (at least in an atmosphere) and dust (even in some vacuum conditions). Shouldn't they lose damage too. Ship lasers do apparently. And ship plasma and fusion weapons lose damage like their smaller cousins, though in a different way. Ugh...

My way, wrongly read/interpreted though it was, is better in so many ways I can't see how they didn't do it that way. Or even better not have any damage reduction for any weapons anywhere. Really all that's needed is one level of abstraction, the to hit roll and it's adjustements for range. Anything else just complicates needlessly.