Updated Classic Traveller Combat Sequence

[CTJosh]

Supplement Four, considering you're a bit of a numbers guy I thought you might appreciate this link to Sean Reynolds website (who has written many D&D books, in case you shun D&D).

This "rant" is about D&D and armor class, but I think it's pertinent to Traveller, in its many incarnations, too.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/armorasdamagereduction.html

 

[CTJosh]

Supplement Four, considering you're a bit of a numbers guy I thought you might appreciate this link to Sean Reynolds website (who has written many D&D books, in case you shun D&D).

This "rant" is about D&D and armor class, but I think it's pertinent to Traveller, in its many incarnations, too.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/armorasdamagereduction.html

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by CTJosh:
Supplement Four, considering you're a bit of a numbers guy I thought you might appreciate this link to Sean Reynolds website (who has written many D&D books, in case you shun D&D).

This "rant" is about D&D and armor class, but I think it's pertinent to Traveller, in its many incarnations, too.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/armorasdamagereduction.html

CTJosh, welcome to CotI and let me first apologize, as what I'm about to say is very uncharcterisitic of a CotI welcome.

The D&D rant might make much sense for D&D, but doesn't really apply to Classic Traveller or really any other game.

The key thesis, its too much work to change D&D to armor reducing damage is true. D&D has historically treated armor as an abstraction where a "hit" is just not a touch but a touch that damages. D&D also abstracted the idea of skill in avoiding blows into levels and hit points, and replaced armor damage absorption with hit points. That is, the real world qualitative benefits of skill and armor were abstracted and intermingled in Armor Class, Hit Points and Levels. To all of a sudden have armor absorb damage might require several changes to D&D to retain playability: rescaling the armor values, rescaling weapon damage, adding a weapon penetration factor, allowing critical hits, consideration of aromor by location/aimed shots, implementaion of a skill system so your chance to be hit in melee is reduced if your better than your opponent and vice versa.

Do all these things take thought and effort to be made to work? Sure they do. No one ever said making a balanced game was easy, especially the more you'd like you abstractions to qualitatively follow real world expereince yet still be fast to play. It is especially hard where you'd need to rework the fundamental mechanics of a game.

That said, the problems with D&D really do not apply to Classic Traveller.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by CTJosh:
Supplement Four, considering you're a bit of a numbers guy I thought you might appreciate this link to Sean Reynolds website (who has written many D&D books, in case you shun D&D).

This "rant" is about D&D and armor class, but I think it's pertinent to Traveller, in its many incarnations, too.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/armorasdamagereduction.html

CTJosh, welcome to CotI and let me first apologize, as what I'm about to say is very uncharcterisitic of a CotI welcome.

The D&D rant might make much sense for D&D, but doesn't really apply to Classic Traveller or really any other game.

The key thesis, its too much work to change D&D to armor reducing damage is true. D&D has historically treated armor as an abstraction where a "hit" is just not a touch but a touch that damages. D&D also abstracted the idea of skill in avoiding blows into levels and hit points, and replaced armor damage absorption with hit points. That is, the real world qualitative benefits of skill and armor were abstracted and intermingled in Armor Class, Hit Points and Levels. To all of a sudden have armor absorb damage might require several changes to D&D to retain playability: rescaling the armor values, rescaling weapon damage, adding a weapon penetration factor, allowing critical hits, consideration of aromor by location/aimed shots, implementaion of a skill system so your chance to be hit in melee is reduced if your better than your opponent and vice versa.

Do all these things take thought and effort to be made to work? Sure they do. No one ever said making a balanced game was easy, especially the more you'd like you abstractions to qualitatively follow real world expereince yet still be fast to play. It is especially hard where you'd need to rework the fundamental mechanics of a game.

That said, the problems with D&D really do not apply to Classic Traveller.

 

[CTJosh]

Ptah,

I disagree. CT uses a system where armor affects your chances of striking an opponent, like D&D has AC. Many house rule systems and later editions of Traveller have incorporated armor that provides damage reduction instead.

Although the "rant" is directed to D&D, I think its useful to look outside the Traveller world to see what other thought exists on this RPG topic (Damage reduction versus hit chance).

Because this thread is dedicated to Supplement Four's combat houserules which choose a damage reduction route versus CT's original armor-effects-hit-chance scheme, I thought it was pertinent to the discussion. Or at least not completely irrelevant.

Although the "rant" discusses many issues specific to D&D, I beleive that they are equally transferable (or translatable) to Traveller.

In any case, I provided the link as a sort "of interest" item only.

 

[CTJosh]

Ptah,

I disagree. CT uses a system where armor affects your chances of striking an opponent, like D&D has AC. Many house rule systems and later editions of Traveller have incorporated armor that provides damage reduction instead.

Although the "rant" is directed to D&D, I think its useful to look outside the Traveller world to see what other thought exists on this RPG topic (Damage reduction versus hit chance).

Because this thread is dedicated to Supplement Four's combat houserules which choose a damage reduction route versus CT's original armor-effects-hit-chance scheme, I thought it was pertinent to the discussion. Or at least not completely irrelevant.

Although the "rant" discusses many issues specific to D&D, I beleive that they are equally transferable (or translatable) to Traveller.

In any case, I provided the link as a sort "of interest" item only.

 

[Supplement Four]

Thanks for the link, Josh. I always like reading the thoughts of someone who looks at rules, trying to balance playability with what the rule actually represents in real life (what it "means" or "models").








On a completely different note:

I've been considering tweaking the CT Weakened Blow rule a bit.

It's a bit too unwieldy, isn't it, having to count the combat rounds and then compare that to a character's END score. IMO, it even get a bit more hard to handle if a character decides to use a weakened blow before it's forced upon him, thereby giving him non-weakened blows later in the round.

What I'm thinking of doing is simply this...

The Weakened Blow penalty kicks in once a character is wounded. If the character is not wounded, there is no WB penalty. Get wounded, and the WB penalty kicks in.

It's simple. I like that.

But, what about high END characters? Shouldn't they get a benefit over low END characters?

Well, I thought about that. How about a check?

Something like this--

Fred, physical stats 687, gets wounded to 537.

Here, normally, the Weakened Blow penalty would kick in, because he's wounded. But, we'll give him a check. He'll have to roll END or less on 2D. If successful, he successfully shrugs off the damage and continues normally without the penalty in the fight.

If he's damaged again, though, he'll need to pass the check again.

I think that's a pretty good, playable rule.

Anybody else think this should be added to these Updated Classic Traveller Combat Rules?

 

[Supplement Four]

Thanks for the link, Josh. I always like reading the thoughts of someone who looks at rules, trying to balance playability with what the rule actually represents in real life (what it "means" or "models").








On a completely different note:

I've been considering tweaking the CT Weakened Blow rule a bit.

It's a bit too unwieldy, isn't it, having to count the combat rounds and then compare that to a character's END score. IMO, it even get a bit more hard to handle if a character decides to use a weakened blow before it's forced upon him, thereby giving him non-weakened blows later in the round.

What I'm thinking of doing is simply this...

The Weakened Blow penalty kicks in once a character is wounded. If the character is not wounded, there is no WB penalty. Get wounded, and the WB penalty kicks in.

It's simple. I like that.

But, what about high END characters? Shouldn't they get a benefit over low END characters?

Well, I thought about that. How about a check?

Something like this--

Fred, physical stats 687, gets wounded to 537.

Here, normally, the Weakened Blow penalty would kick in, because he's wounded. But, we'll give him a check. He'll have to roll END or less on 2D. If successful, he successfully shrugs off the damage and continues normally without the penalty in the fight.

If he's damaged again, though, he'll need to pass the check again.

I think that's a pretty good, playable rule.

Anybody else think this should be added to these Updated Classic Traveller Combat Rules?

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by WJP:
INITIATIVE = 2D for Morale or less

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">DMs
+1 One Stat Wounded
+2 Two Stats Wounded
+4 Three Stats Wounded</pre>

If check passes, Initiative is the number thrown. If check fails, Initiative is the number thrown +10.

Characters with low initiative act earliest in the round.[/quote]Hmmm... From your experience, how nescery an initiative throw is for a fluid and interesting combat round? Do you have any bad experience with the CT method of simultaneus combat?

I'm asking this because, while I'm intrigued with your initiative system (and with the coupling of morale and initiative, as in Striker), I'm reluctant to add more throws to the combat round in order to keep things fuild and simple. So, sell me on initiative throws.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by WJP:
INITIATIVE = 2D for Morale or less

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">DMs
+1 One Stat Wounded
+2 Two Stats Wounded
+4 Three Stats Wounded</pre>

If check passes, Initiative is the number thrown. If check fails, Initiative is the number thrown +10.

Characters with low initiative act earliest in the round.[/quote]Hmmm... From your experience, how nescery an initiative throw is for a fluid and interesting combat round? Do you have any bad experience with the CT method of simultaneus combat?

I'm asking this because, while I'm intrigued with your initiative system (and with the coupling of morale and initiative, as in Striker), I'm reluctant to add more throws to the combat round in order to keep things fuild and simple. So, sell me on initiative throws.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
So, sell me on initiative throws.

Hmm.... OK, here goes.

My players find it fun in the tactical nature this type of thing brings to a game.

You're in a desperate situation....you've GOT to go first next round. You can't take another hit. You're wounded. But, so is the enemy. If you can just find an opening in combat and strike him before he gets a chance to beat you to a pulp, you just might pull through this thing...

You see, Traveller combat is deadly. If you go before your enemy, you are allowed to attack first. If you hit, you may incapacitate your enemy before he even gets a chance to attack you.

On the other hand, going late in a round has it's advantages too. The combatant who moves last has the advantage of seeing what everyone else will do in the round, and then react to that.

But, there may be an awful price to pay for that advantage...if you're incapacitated by an enemy moving earlier in the round.

The tactical nature of initiative is: Do I want to move first but let my enemy react to my movements. Or, do I want to take a chance and move last, with the knowledge of what everyone else will do in the round.

BOTH choices can be beneficial to a combatant in a combat round--depending on the situation.








BTW, when I roll initiative, it flows pretty well with my group. "Alright, new round. Everbody roll e-nish!"

I don't share what the NPCs roll with the players. They find out as the round progresses.

A player who rolls a very low initiative has a choice: He can go first in the round on his low initiative number--or he can use the Hold Action to go much later in the round.

Each player will choose based on thier best tactical advantage.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
So, sell me on initiative throws.

Hmm.... OK, here goes.

My players find it fun in the tactical nature this type of thing brings to a game.

You're in a desperate situation....you've GOT to go first next round. You can't take another hit. You're wounded. But, so is the enemy. If you can just find an opening in combat and strike him before he gets a chance to beat you to a pulp, you just might pull through this thing...

You see, Traveller combat is deadly. If you go before your enemy, you are allowed to attack first. If you hit, you may incapacitate your enemy before he even gets a chance to attack you.

On the other hand, going late in a round has it's advantages too. The combatant who moves last has the advantage of seeing what everyone else will do in the round, and then react to that.

But, there may be an awful price to pay for that advantage...if you're incapacitated by an enemy moving earlier in the round.

The tactical nature of initiative is: Do I want to move first but let my enemy react to my movements. Or, do I want to take a chance and move last, with the knowledge of what everyone else will do in the round.

BOTH choices can be beneficial to a combatant in a combat round--depending on the situation.








BTW, when I roll initiative, it flows pretty well with my group. "Alright, new round. Everbody roll e-nish!"

I don't share what the NPCs roll with the players. They find out as the round progresses.

A player who rolls a very low initiative has a choice: He can go first in the round on his low initiative number--or he can use the Hold Action to go much later in the round.

Each player will choose based on thier best tactical advantage.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
INITIATIVE = 2D for Morale or less

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">DMs
+1 One Stat Wounded
+2 Two Stats Wounded
+4 Three Stats Wounded</pre>

If check passes, Initiative is the number thrown. If check fails, Initiative is the number thrown +10.

Characters with low initiative act earliest in the round.[/quote]BTW, I've added a new modifier to the initiative roll: Leader skill.

Many "leaders" lead by example. A character can use his Leader skill level to improve his initiative roll. Or, he can use it to improve the initiative throws of others in his party (those he is "leading"). Or, if his skill is Leader-2 or better, he can split the modifer among his own initiative and his "troops".

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
INITIATIVE = 2D for Morale or less

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">DMs
+1 One Stat Wounded
+2 Two Stats Wounded
+4 Three Stats Wounded</pre>

If check passes, Initiative is the number thrown. If check fails, Initiative is the number thrown +10.

Characters with low initiative act earliest in the round.[/quote]BTW, I've added a new modifier to the initiative roll: Leader skill.

Many "leaders" lead by example. A character can use his Leader skill level to improve his initiative roll. Or, he can use it to improve the initiative throws of others in his party (those he is "leading"). Or, if his skill is Leader-2 or better, he can split the modifer among his own initiative and his "troops".

 

[Golan2072]

Ok, you've convinced me to use initiative, though I'm a bit reluctant to throw initiative seperately for each character (especially NPC) each round.

A compromise in this regard is to group the NPCs into a unit or two, avarage their morale, and base their initiative on this. However, a group of NPCs under the command of a leader (officer or NCO in most cases) would add that leader's Leader AND Tactical skills to their initiative.

 

[Golan2072]

Ok, you've convinced me to use initiative, though I'm a bit reluctant to throw initiative seperately for each character (especially NPC) each round.

A compromise in this regard is to group the NPCs into a unit or two, avarage their morale, and base their initiative on this. However, a group of NPCs under the command of a leader (officer or NCO in most cases) would add that leader's Leader AND Tactical skills to their initiative.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
A compromise in this regard is to group the NPCs into a unit or two, avarage their morale, and base their initiative on this. However, a group of NPCs under the command of a leader (officer or NCO in most cases) would add that leader's Leader AND Tactical skills to their initiative.

That's certainly one way to do it. I wouldn't in my game because Traveller is so deadly. The side that goes first--if every person on that entire side went on the same initiative--would unbalance the game, imo. It would turn it into a "whoever wins initiative wins the fight" type of thing--because the entire side would go first, devestating the opposition. Especially if you're using rules from my combat rules like Panic Fire (which allows up to three pulls of the trigger for one attack) and my Random Damage rule where at any time during a fight (not just the first, as with the CT first blood rule) damage can be applied on a target randomly depending on the quality of the attack throw (how high the attack throw was).

Also, I have a couple of different uses for Tacitics and Leader skill.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
A compromise in this regard is to group the NPCs into a unit or two, avarage their morale, and base their initiative on this. However, a group of NPCs under the command of a leader (officer or NCO in most cases) would add that leader's Leader AND Tactical skills to their initiative.

That's certainly one way to do it. I wouldn't in my game because Traveller is so deadly. The side that goes first--if every person on that entire side went on the same initiative--would unbalance the game, imo. It would turn it into a "whoever wins initiative wins the fight" type of thing--because the entire side would go first, devestating the opposition. Especially if you're using rules from my combat rules like Panic Fire (which allows up to three pulls of the trigger for one attack) and my Random Damage rule where at any time during a fight (not just the first, as with the CT first blood rule) damage can be applied on a target randomly depending on the quality of the attack throw (how high the attack throw was).

Also, I have a couple of different uses for Tacitics and Leader skill.

 

[Supplement Four]

Rule Idea...


I've been examining/tweaking both the ways damage is handled in vanilla CT and in my expanded damage rules in another thread recently.

The challenge of a good Traveller combat system is that it must balance the perception of "reality" (meaning combat is dangerous) with "fun" (meaning PCs like to get into an exciting gun battle from time to time).

I've changed/improved vanilla CT, motivated by a number of reasons, and I believe I've come up with a pretty cool CT combat tweak (at least, it's working well for my group in our campaign...and my combat tweaks have got about a year of play testing behind them now).

One thing still bothering me, though, about both vanilla CT and my enhanced version is this: The first time a character is hit by gunfire, it is very likely that a character will be knocked unconscious by the gunshot wound (having just one stat go to zero) rather than being seriously wounded (having two stats go to zero).

For both my version of CT and vanilla CT, this is a truism: Characters hit by a slugthrower for the first time are typically knocked unconsious (with a minor wound that heals quickly) rather than seriously wounded, as one would expect in the real world when real people are shot.

Now, in both my version of CT and vanilla CT, this is a playability issue. If you make gunshots more realistic (meaning, they do more devestating damage), then you can't have cool gunfights in your game because you'll typically have at least one PC die when the bullets start flying.

On the other hand, making Traveller combat less dangerous than vanilla CT (a la hit points and the d20 system) isn't the answer either. Deadly Traveller combat is desireable to keep Traveller's "realistic" feel.

Thus, you have the compromise that's evident in both my version of CT and vanilla CT, that being: Characters aren't as likely to be seriously wounded or killed as they are to be knocked unconscious.

Think about it. In vanilla CT, what do you have? You've got characters with average stats of 7, firearms that typically default to 3D damage, and the first blood rule where all damage is applied to one randomly chosen stat before being "carried over" to another stat once the random one is deflated to 0.

Average dude in Traveller has physical stats of 777.

Average damage from a firearm is 3D, which works out to 10 points of damage, or a three dice roll of: 3, 3, 4.

If you apply those 10 points of damage randomly to one stat, you're going to end up with something like this: 047.

That's plain vanilla CT rules. THAT character, gunshot wound and all, will be up and at 'em, ready to go again, in just 30 minutes, after a medic has looked at him and patched a bandaid over the bullet hole.

Oh yeah, and his stats will be: 447.

Not bad for a guy who was just plugged with a high powered military automatic rifle.

My version of the CT rules strive to be a little more realistic than that (while still walking the tight rope between believeable reality and playability), but still, even in my version, a character is going to be most likely stunned or knocked unconscious by gunshot wounds (rather than suffering effects normally associated with real gunshot wounds).

So....

In considering all this, I'm looking at adding a new rule to the combat system you see posted earlier in this thread.

This new rule will make is possible, but not likely, that the first time a character is shot, he'll be seriously wounded.

The "possible" part is the one foot in "believeable reality", while the "not likely" part keeps the game playable and fun (meaning that PCs can surive gunfights!).

After all this explaination as to what got me here, let me present the rule.

It's a simple rule, as all my rules strive to be. Easy. Playable. Quick to use.










DOULBES ON THE ATTACK THROW

Whenever the dice of a successful attack throw show doubles, then all damage is carried over.








You'll note that, once a stat (under my rules) has been reduced to zero, then all damage can be "dumped" into that stat (basically, ignored) and not carried over to other stats. Only random damage (damage dice applied randomly) are really considered "leathal" damage. All other damage is considered "bruise" or non-leathal.

But, with this new rule, when doubles on the attack throw are thrown, damage will be carried over.

And, this rule will make it possible to stop an enemy with a serious gunshot wound with one single shot.

I've already shown you that, with vanilla CT, odds are you won't seriously wound an enemy the first time you shoot him. With my system, we see something different but with the same result.

This new rule will change that: Making it possible to drop an enemy with one shot.

 

[Supplement Four]

Rule Idea...


I've been examining/tweaking both the ways damage is handled in vanilla CT and in my expanded damage rules in another thread recently.

The challenge of a good Traveller combat system is that it must balance the perception of "reality" (meaning combat is dangerous) with "fun" (meaning PCs like to get into an exciting gun battle from time to time).

I've changed/improved vanilla CT, motivated by a number of reasons, and I believe I've come up with a pretty cool CT combat tweak (at least, it's working well for my group in our campaign...and my combat tweaks have got about a year of play testing behind them now).

One thing still bothering me, though, about both vanilla CT and my enhanced version is this: The first time a character is hit by gunfire, it is very likely that a character will be knocked unconscious by the gunshot wound (having just one stat go to zero) rather than being seriously wounded (having two stats go to zero).

For both my version of CT and vanilla CT, this is a truism: Characters hit by a slugthrower for the first time are typically knocked unconsious (with a minor wound that heals quickly) rather than seriously wounded, as one would expect in the real world when real people are shot.

Now, in both my version of CT and vanilla CT, this is a playability issue. If you make gunshots more realistic (meaning, they do more devestating damage), then you can't have cool gunfights in your game because you'll typically have at least one PC die when the bullets start flying.

On the other hand, making Traveller combat less dangerous than vanilla CT (a la hit points and the d20 system) isn't the answer either. Deadly Traveller combat is desireable to keep Traveller's "realistic" feel.

Thus, you have the compromise that's evident in both my version of CT and vanilla CT, that being: Characters aren't as likely to be seriously wounded or killed as they are to be knocked unconscious.

Think about it. In vanilla CT, what do you have? You've got characters with average stats of 7, firearms that typically default to 3D damage, and the first blood rule where all damage is applied to one randomly chosen stat before being "carried over" to another stat once the random one is deflated to 0.

Average dude in Traveller has physical stats of 777.

Average damage from a firearm is 3D, which works out to 10 points of damage, or a three dice roll of: 3, 3, 4.

If you apply those 10 points of damage randomly to one stat, you're going to end up with something like this: 047.

That's plain vanilla CT rules. THAT character, gunshot wound and all, will be up and at 'em, ready to go again, in just 30 minutes, after a medic has looked at him and patched a bandaid over the bullet hole.

Oh yeah, and his stats will be: 447.

Not bad for a guy who was just plugged with a high powered military automatic rifle.

My version of the CT rules strive to be a little more realistic than that (while still walking the tight rope between believeable reality and playability), but still, even in my version, a character is going to be most likely stunned or knocked unconscious by gunshot wounds (rather than suffering effects normally associated with real gunshot wounds).

So....

In considering all this, I'm looking at adding a new rule to the combat system you see posted earlier in this thread.

This new rule will make is possible, but not likely, that the first time a character is shot, he'll be seriously wounded.

The "possible" part is the one foot in "believeable reality", while the "not likely" part keeps the game playable and fun (meaning that PCs can surive gunfights!).

After all this explaination as to what got me here, let me present the rule.

It's a simple rule, as all my rules strive to be. Easy. Playable. Quick to use.










DOULBES ON THE ATTACK THROW

Whenever the dice of a successful attack throw show doubles, then all damage is carried over.








You'll note that, once a stat (under my rules) has been reduced to zero, then all damage can be "dumped" into that stat (basically, ignored) and not carried over to other stats. Only random damage (damage dice applied randomly) are really considered "leathal" damage. All other damage is considered "bruise" or non-leathal.

But, with this new rule, when doubles on the attack throw are thrown, damage will be carried over.

And, this rule will make it possible to stop an enemy with a serious gunshot wound with one single shot.

I've already shown you that, with vanilla CT, odds are you won't seriously wound an enemy the first time you shoot him. With my system, we see something different but with the same result.

This new rule will change that: Making it possible to drop an enemy with one shot.