T5.09 Ranged Combat

[robject]

I'm going to try to organize my thoughts here.

Ignore MINOR Adjustments. In other words, *I* as referee can institute little twiddles easily without changing the actual STRUCTURE of combat. Initiative order; cover as armor; NPCs dropping when dealt 10+ points on a hit; etc). Even those horrid DMs against the to-hit task. EVEN HOW HIT LOCATIONS ARE ROLLED AND HITS DEGRADE ARMOR BY LOCATION. Some of us like them, some of us hate them, and they're NOT CENTRAL.

Let's not waste time on them. Identify likely candidates when they crop up, add them to a recommendation pile, but MOVE ON.

We might update the rules with ALTERNATE SUGGESTIONS. Sound wishy-washy? Meh.


This isn't about ORGANIZATION. A third of my errata on combat was about organization. We Will Fix That.



Ranged Combat

The essence of the combat task is

Difficulty (range dice) < Assets.

So the crux of things is how difficulty is adjusted, and how damage is rolled.

Difficulty is adjusted based on how careful you're firing -- that's very reasonable. You're trading off probabilities, and that makes sense.

However, I think here are the updates that helps fix the most pressing issues:


Burst and Full Auto. Here's something I think would be nice to clarify: burst fire doesn't double the amount of dice you roll, it doubles the result. Similarly with full auto. Is this the way it works now?

Minimum Ranged Task Difficulty is Always 2D It's ridiculous to think that your typical ranged combat tasks could be less than 2D, no matter how close you are and how long you take to aim. A referee can overrule this due to circumstances, but for the sake of game balance, the minimum should be noted as 2D.



EXAMPLE

Average Guy (AG): Dex 7 + Rifle 3 = Target Number 10.

PC: Dex 10 + Rifle 5 = Target Number 15

Targets are at Range=1 to one another.

          Adjusted Target
Range DM  AG PC
----- --  -----
  1    4  14 19
  2    3  13 18
  3    2  12 17
  4    1  11 16       
  5    0  10 15

Both targets are under full cover.
Cover DM for both is therefore -6 -3 = -9.

AG = 14 - 9 = 5.
PC = 19 - 9 = 10.

Aimed: -1D difficulty, 1 shot if stationary (BUT: minimum difficulty is 2D).
Standard: 2 shots if stationary.
Snap: +1D difficulty, 3 shots if stationary.


The task is 2D < Asset. 2D is the minimum dice rolled.


AG's best option is to fire standard. He gets two shots at the best possible probability. It is probable that one of the shots will hit.

PC's best option is to also fire standard. He has a 92% chance to hit both times. If he went for a snapfire, odds would dive down near 50%. Not worth it.


Summary

I see no particular problems with setting 2D as the minimum difficulty level, enforced after all other modifications are considered, and I see it resolving a potential issue.

I don't like DMs, but I am free to ignore them or consolidate them. Or, better, maybe my players will like them and use them. More power to them.

Initiative is easy for a referee to adjust. It's not a core brokenness of the rules.

Burst and Full Auto should multiply after damage is rolled; they do not increase the number of dice rolled.

Now where are we?

 

[David Johansen]

The system is very dependant on the cover modifier. 2d is far too low without it. If two foes are maximizing cover there's a -9 modifier. PCs are likely to have skill plus stat in excess of 10 if not 15.

I've suggested patches over the years but the simple truth is that I like the first version better.

 

[robject]

Moral of combat: if you poke your head up, it will get blown off.

T5.09 has some good ideas, but so does T5.00.

 

[mike wightman]

What happened to the working party fixing combat?

 

[David Johansen]

The problem is that whole dice are often too large and there wind up being too many modifiers. Also, range double dips by providing the basic difficulty and modifying size.

The elements that need to be represented in the attack task:

Range
Target Speed (human is already 0 - 2)
Target Size (human is already 5)
Automatic Fire (RF +VRF)
Cover (we already have hit locations so we could take this out you've got a smaller target or you hit the cover)
Evasion (most of the military guys I've talked to don't thing it really matters)
Ease of Use and Burden

I think Marc likes the idea that taking cover reduces tactical advantages and thus chance to hit. I don't I much prefer map based combat and this system doesn't work well with it.

As Rob knows, I've played with these elements quite a bit but not to anyone's satisfaction. Ideally, you should be able to miss at close range. The current range of difficulties and modifiers don't really mesh with the range of skill plus stat.

I've run both combat systems in actual play. I think the first version worked better and was clearer.

However, I suspect the best version was actually the very early version on the pre-release CDRom which used 2d for every task and modifiers. I'd probably go to 3d because skill levels are roughly 4x CT levels and it just breaks the 2d too easily.

What if the difficulty in dice wasn't for range or rate of fire? I've always liked +2 for RF +4 for VRF. What if difficulty was for the tactical situation? We've wanted Tactics to do something major and right now it's just a pool of modifiers that further break the non-functional dice range.

Suppose it was 2d for advantageous situations (ambushing), 3d for disadvantageous situations, and 4d for total fubar (ambushed in the loo)?

So there's a tactics roll each round for each side with a success allowing 3d difficulty for shooting. If there's a major advantage one side 2d. If there's a major disadvantage and a failure 4d.

Leave most of the modifiers in place but just have cover work if the attack hits a location that's under cover. No amount of cover's going to save you from a plasma gun anyhow and the current system doesn't reflect that.

 

[Daddicus]

I've got two problems with 5.09's combat.

The first is born out of the three actual game sessions my campaign has played: it's easy to automatically hit. At range 2 or less, one character can't miss. Ever. (10 dex and 6 slug-thrower).

My solution is going to be adding a change to close ranged combat: boxcars always fails.

The second is not so easy to fix. It's just too hard to understand the mechanics (thinking of both actual combat and the weapon-creation system).

This could be fixed with a few good examples of combat and a few examples of weapon creation. Not one, like in the rules now.

I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and say these examples should be on the wiki, and only referenced in the book. That way, there could be LOTS of examples.

NOTE: I'll almost certainly have other issues; we've only done a handful of combats, and all were against Chamax, so they're not exactly broadly testing the combat system.

 

[Daddicus]

I think Marc likes the idea that taking cover reduces tactical advantages and thus chance to hit.

The problem is that in real life, having cover usually INCREASES your chance of hitting a target, at least with ranged weapons. Real soldiers (one of which is playing in my campaign) are trained to use the edge of a building for both cover and to stabilize themselves. In my experience hunting and target shooting, I agree 100%.

Now, concealment is another matter. Being behind concealment generally reduces your chance of hitting, but not by quite as much as it reduces the other guys chance of hitting you. So, the half-concealment penalty makes sense.

But, I'm not sure how to fix the cover problem. It's a game mechanic, but it doesn't play out in the real world.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I have used 5.00 but not 5.09 combat. I think minimum dice being 2D is a good idea, so long as boxcars always misses - I agree with Daddicus.

I also think making a distinction between the three different types of firing by the number of shots adds to the "rich decision making environment" of a good game. It also introduces the possibility of an optional rule around ammunition tracking. I have found in most games that no one ever needs to reload before the firefight is over, but on the odd occasion I can see presenting the problem of how much ammunition can the PCs carry would add to the game especially in a military sci-fi campaign.

Just to be a bit picky about terminology: "DM" in the table should really read as "Mod" as it is added to the target number not the dice roll.

I have no personal experience with guns, the military or hunting. I can see Daddicus' argument that cover can be used to brace oneself, thus making it easier to aim. But I think the Cover DM abstracts how long you are prepared to expose yourself during the combat round in order to fire. Staying under cover more means less chance of your head being blown off, but on the other hand means less time to see your target and get your shots off, even if braced.

I also think Rob's general construction here addresses the problem of the relationship between the cover fire DM (both benefit and penalty) and the type of firing action taken. A potential objection is that surely taking aim would mean exposing part of yourself for longer in the round. But, on reflection, 3 snapshots / 2 standard shots / 1 aimed shot are all more difficult if you are not popping your head up most of the round, and are all more easier if you are prepared to lower your cover DM by, for example, having your head and shoulders exposed to brace your weapon while crouching behind that stone wall - that is, selecting a Cover DM lower than the maximum, which makes the task easier.

This doesn't quite address the fact that bracing yourself on a good solid object makes aiming easier than standing full in the open bracing the weapon only with your own body and balance.

But there's another rule in 5.09 that helps address that: lying prone and crouching; you get a benefit by reducing your apparent size without a penalty to your own roll. So just by crouching behind that wall you reduce your apparent size, and you can select a Cover DM above and beyond that. This reduces the penalty to your own fire vs. the benefit of the position you select combined with the beneficial Cover DM.

For example, Crouching reduces your apparent size by 1. You select your Cover DM as -6. This means your attacker effectively gets a -7 Mod, while you get a -3 Mod on your attack. If you are lying prone, this becomes effectively a -9 for your attacker while only a -3 penalty for yourself. And, in fact, a human (Size 5) lying prone (Apparent Size 3) at Range 4 from their attacker makes them invisible to their enemy at no Mod penalty to their own attack.

I think this means keeping the Target Number formula to: C + S + K + (apparent modified Size) + Cover is a reasonable and playable abstraction.

 

[pendragonman]

In reference to cover helping the to hit:

It only helps if the shooter actively uses the cover to brace the weapon. There is a huge volume of examples of people shooting from cover without using the cover to brace the weapon.

So, the shooter should actively state they are bracing the weapon to get a bonus.

 

[Arien]

The problem is that in real life, having cover usually INCREASES your chance of hitting a target, at least with ranged weapons. Real soldiers (one of which is playing in my campaign) are trained to use the edge of a building for both cover and to stabilize themselves. In my experience hunting and target shooting, I agree 100%.

Now, concealment is another matter. Being behind concealment generally reduces your chance of hitting, but not by quite as much as it reduces the other guys chance of hitting you. So, the half-concealment penalty makes sense.

But, I'm not sure how to fix the cover problem. It's a game mechanic, but it doesn't play out in the real world.

I think there should be two types of being in cover - one is just being partly behind something, possibly bracing your weapon, and firing with less of you exposed. The other would be hiding behind cover and occasionally leaning out to fire. That would reasonably reduce both your chances of hitting and the chance of you being hit, I think.