Combat Modifiers

[Sevain]

I admit I have not read the 140 posts in this thread, so I am sorry if what I am saying has already been said. I also apologize if this is the wrong place for this kind of post.



Instead of a flat -1 DM to hit Dodge now gives a variable DM of up to -5 (although realistically probably no more than -3). On the other hand Dodge no longer necessarily gives any penalty, if you have average or worse dexterity and no Athletics (dexterity) training. Since dodging works against getting shot this situation seems extremely silly. Shooting a super ninja with reactions to burn with a rifle can easily be equivalent to Very Difficult check, while the average combatant can not claim any benefit. I very much liked the Dodge of the previous edition since it was a simple, default defence available to everybody.

The close combat rules require more thought. At least they need to be worded better, if this is not the intended interpretation. As they stand currently there is no way to get out of close combat without taking an attack of opportunity with +2 DM from your opponent. Another rather silly situation is made possible by the current rules: consider a bunch of marines each armed with a laser rifles facing a single armored combatant wielding a katana. The katana man moves within close range of all of the marines, locking them all in close combat. Each marine can either club the katana man with their rifle, a course of action which certainly will not accomplish much against an armoured opponent, or move out of the engagement granting the katana man a free attack to cut him down with. Having a sword should not let you break the action economy.

Speaking of swords, the 4d6 + STR modifier seems like a very high damage output for the broadsword. Until the invention of the rocket launcher (TL 6) the best option for a primitive world to defend itself against Battle Dress wearing goons is burly dudes with huge swords. This seems ridiculous for a TL 5 world.

Cloth armour is currently cheaper, more protective and equally available compared to flak jackets but slightly heavier. I suspect the names have switched places on the armour list.

I have another concern with armour: the protection numbers seem very high. In my experience in the previous edition a slug thrower with 3d6 damage essentially could not take down a protection 16 enemy. Since damage of the weapons has not increased this shifts the game balance in favour of defence. Is this an intentional design choice? Another consequence is to further increase the prominence of the highly destructive weapons, such as the PGMP, which essentially ignore all armour.

Overall the new edition seems to hand out modifiers more willingly. I worry this could easily lead to situations where a number of +1 modifiers converge and the probabilities suddenly shift significantly. Another point that I have noted is the willingness to hand out larger modifiers. I remind the game designers that the functional range of modifiers in total with the chosen 2d6 mechanic is +5, so even a +1 is a significant advantage. I also urge to avoid the situation which seems prevalent in combat where the system seems to expect by default for each attack to include positive and negative modifiers. Since the end result seems to usually hover around 0 it would simplify the system to eliminate needless modifiers, such as the +1 DM for close range. I believe this would make the game play faster, since there would be less constant checking for modifiers.

 

[AndrewW]

Moved to the playtest section of the forums.

 

[Nerhesi]

I admit I have not read the 140 posts in this thread, so I am sorry if what I am saying has already been said. I also apologize if this is the wrong place for this kind of post.

Instead of a flat -1 DM to hit Dodge now gives a variable DM of up to -5 (although realistically probably no more than -3). On the other hand Dodge no longer necessarily gives any penalty, if you have average or worse dexterity and no Athletics (dexterity) training. Since dodging works against getting shot this situation seems extremely silly. Shooting a super ninja with reactions to burn with a rifle can easily be equivalent to Very Difficult check, while the average combatant can not claim any benefit. I very much liked the Dodge of the previous edition since it was a simple, default defence available to everybody.

Glad you could weigh in here!

I think the dodge rules are a must Sevain, and allow me to explain:

MGT1: Trivial to-hit difficulties. Combat very quickly become simplistic and unchallenging. What is worse is that, unlike most RPGs, a player character's skill had ZERO effect on their defense, meanwhile it had massive affect on their ability to hit. This is a classic balance issue that actual reduces the value of other skills because you find yourself not needing them, and also breaks the formula of "if I can better at offense, why can't I get better at defense". Armour is not a good answer as it easily penetrated and combat is lethal.

CAVEAT MGT1: You could dodge into full cover to give you a -8 to be hit. This quickly became a must have for my group - the second there were competent mercs (minor implants, skill levels of 2-4, dex bonus of +1 or +2 due to implants, sights, aiming, expert software - all trivial cost and TL except perhaps 1 implant etc), their bonuses to hit easily exceeded +6 (one was at a +10). This naturally meant, enemies also got more challenging. Even just using gauss rifles or Heavy ACRs with special ammo, it meant a guaranteed hit, and a possibly guaranteed knockout in that 1 hit. So in MGT1, you had to be dodging into full cover.

--------VS---------

MGT2: Trivial to-hit difficulties AND the cover penalties are now removed! At best, you get a -2 cover bonus which can easily be avoided with sighting aids. The bonuses to hit from MGT1 are also still mostly there (very minor reduction though due to being unable to combine ballistic lenses and gun sights). Skill is of course a huge benefit.

That means your ability to dodge is now the SOLE major, persistent negative modifier to being shot. (No need to mention range, lack of scope, or any others - these are very very situational).


Conclusion:

MGT1 actually had significantly harder to hit numbers, due to improved cover bonuses. This addresses your first point - Very Difficult to hit checks were much more common in MGT1 with ANY cover (ranging from -2 to -6 in ADDITION to a -2 dodge)
MGT2 actually rewards players diversifying their skill investment, and as part of good RPG design, player skills/stats mean more.
MGT2 does not require an opposed roll, which means player skill helps but does so in a passive way that doesn't slow down play.
MGT2 is now more realistic (bear with me). You're ability to evade being shot (Not dodging bullets here - lets be mature), is not something that is inherently the same for everyone ranging from an 18 year old spoiled kid, to a 34 year old star-marine veteran.
MGT2 Lets you be a ninja! For a ridiculous skill level investment, that really should reward you like having a 5 in gun combat, gunnery turrets, or pilot spacecraft does.
MGT2 Actually overall makes you easier to hit because improved possibly dodging doesn't make up for the absent massive cover bonuses, especially at the "untrained civilian" or "basic security guard" levels.

I'm actually concerned about the LACK of negative modifiers in MGT personal combat as a whole. Vehicle and Space combat are much, much better off thank God!

 

[Nerhesi]

I have another concern with armour: the protection numbers seem very high. In my experience in the previous edition a slug thrower with 3d6 damage essentially could not take down a protection 16 enemy. Since damage of the weapons has not increased this shifts the game balance in favour of defence. Is this an intentional design choice? Another consequence is to further increase the prominence of the highly destructive weapons, such as the PGMP, which essentially ignore all armour.

Really? I actually think they're a bit low given the preponderance of higher damage weapons and special ammunition. We went through a lengthy process here, but here are some examples:

Gauss Rifle, Range 600!!, APDS ammo, 4D AP17. Bonuses to hit for a basic character: +1 short range (150 meters! Hah!), +1 aiming, +1 sighting aid, +2 from skill, +1 from stat. Lets assume a -2 from dodging.
A basic character popping off a single Guass Rifle APDS shot has a +5 to hit. Assuming just a single shot not an auto-3 burst, you have 34 damage on to-hit roll of 8 (before bonus), and average damage being rolled.
Even if the target is in grav power armour, They are taking 14 damage. Even if we added Dispersion over-armour and advanced cloth under armour, they are still taking 8 damage from an average hit. An above average hit could instantly knockout the target.

I think we've hit a sweetspot with the non-battledress armour.

Overall the new edition seems to hand out modifiers more willingly. I worry this could easily lead to situations where a number of +1 modifiers converge and the probabilities suddenly shift significantly. Another point that I have noted is the willingness to hand out larger modifiers. I remind the game designers that the functional range of modifiers in total with the chosen 2d6 mechanic is +5, so even a +1 is a significant advantage. I also urge to avoid the situation which seems prevalent in combat where the system seems to expect by default for each attack to include positive and negative modifiers. Since the end result seems to usually hover around 0 it would simplify the system to eliminate needless modifiers, such as the +1 DM for close range. I believe this would make the game play faster, since there would be less constant checking for modifiers.

I completely agree with you and have been working tirelessly (to Matt's chagrin) to really point out exactly what you stated. In a 2D6 game we have to be really careful with the total number of modifiers - which is why I've been making sure our negative mods are available to allow player choice to be impactful. We dont want just low positive modifiers and then it is just a die roll without player choices/stats! We have to find that careful balance that allows for choices on both sides (+s and -s), without varying too much to just one side.

I really am looking forward to seeing better cover modifiers in the Player's options book as I think bringing back cover mods is done for now

 

[Nerhesi]

I have another concern with armour: the protection numbers seem very high. In my experience in the previous edition a slug thrower with 3d6 damage essentially could not take down a protection 16 enemy. Since damage of the weapons has not increased this shifts the game balance in favour of defence. Is this an intentional design choice? Another consequence is to further increase the prominence of the highly destructive weapons, such as the PGMP, which essentially ignore all armour.

Really? I actually think they're a bit low given the preponderance of higher damage weapons and special ammunition. We went through a lengthy process here, but here are some examples:

Gauss Rifle, Range 600!!, APDS ammo, 4D AP17. Bonuses to hit for a basic character: +1 short range (150 meters! Hah!), +1 aiming, +1 sighting aid, +2 from skill, +1 from stat. Lets assume a -2 from dodging.
A basic character popping off a single Guass Rifle APDS shot has a +5 to hit. Assuming just a single shot not an auto-3 burst, you have 34 damage on to-hit roll of 8 (before bonus), and average damage being rolled.
Even if the target is in grav power armour, They are taking 14 damage. Even if we added Dispersion over-armour and advanced cloth under armour, they are still taking 8 damage from an average hit. An above average hit could instantly knockout the target. As both the target and shooter become more skilled, advanced, and well equipped, the bonuses benefit the shooter (implants, better sighting aids, skill wires, better weapons etc)

I think we've hit a sweetspot with the non-battledress armour.

Overall the new edition seems to hand out modifiers more willingly. I worry this could easily lead to situations where a number of +1 modifiers converge and the probabilities suddenly shift significantly. Another point that I have noted is the willingness to hand out larger modifiers. I remind the game designers that the functional range of modifiers in total with the chosen 2d6 mechanic is +5, so even a +1 is a significant advantage. I also urge to avoid the situation which seems prevalent in combat where the system seems to expect by default for each attack to include positive and negative modifiers. Since the end result seems to usually hover around 0 it would simplify the system to eliminate needless modifiers, such as the +1 DM for close range. I believe this would make the game play faster, since there would be less constant checking for modifiers.

I completely agree with you and have been working tirelessly (to Matt's chagrin) to really point out exactly what you stated. In a 2D6 game we have to be really careful with the total number of modifiers - which is why I've been making sure our negative mods are available to allow player choice to be impactful. We dont want just low positive modifiers and then it is just a die roll without player choices/stats! We have to find that careful balance that allows for choices on both sides (+s and -s), without varying too much to just one side.

I really am looking forward to seeing better cover modifiers in the Player's options book as I think bringing back cover mods is done for now

 

[Sevain]

If we consider a realistic competent opponent, they would probably be pretty talented at what they do (+1 DM from the attribute) and either pretty good (+1 DM from skill) or really good (+2 DM from skill) at what they do. For a total of +2 or +3 DM. Unless they are an honest to god ninja or something. I mean seriously, it would be a Hard or Very Hard skill check to staff an entire organization with people of this level of competence.

Lets say one of the more competent guys (+3 DM from skill and dexterity, a very dangerous combatant indeed) fires the gauss rifle at a guy in cover at 150m wearing a TL 12 combat armour (protection 17) after aiming for a single minor action. The short range modifier at 150m is ridiculous and needs to go away completely as a concept. The dice mechanics are simply put too coarse for that kind of fine distinction in range to exist within the mechanics. There just is not enough room. The +1 DM for a laser sight is also severely silly and also needs to go away. No sight aid in the universe should grant a bonus unless it takes control over your fucking arms and aims the gun itself. Sighting aids should all merely reduce penalties. Lets assume the target wants to dodge since he does not want to die horribly, for a -2 DM. The total modifiers should be (and I point out, SHOULD be) +3 from the competent shooter, +1 for aiming, versus -2 for cover and -2 for dodging (into cover, not from having 12 DEX or skills if it was my game). For a grand total of 0. Even with the silly modifiers for "short" (150m is not short) range you get a +1 DM in total, since 150m is beyond the 50m within which a laser sight works.

Assuming a good hit, with +2 damage (effectively a roll of 10 in the previous example) from Effect of the attack roll, the attacker will deal 4d6 + 2 with armour piercing 5, or on average a total effective damage of 21. This might be increased to 24 if the attacker fired a burst, which a competent attacker probably would do. Against the equal TL combat armour this means a total damage of 4 or 7 getting through, clearly enough to noticeably injure the target but unlikely to knock him out. Obviously the four dice gives a lot of room for the result to fluctuate around this, but this is the average result. This seems perfectly fine to me.

My concern is that if the attacker uses literally the next best thing, an Advanced Combat Rifle, the average damage will be 12,5 (with the +2 damage from Effect from the attack roll) or 15,5 with burst fire, which I will round to 16 due to optimism. This means on average the ACR will not, despite a solid hit and burst fire, deal a single point of damage to the Protection 17 TL 12 combat armour wearing opponent. There is approximately 62% chance the hit deals no damage at all. There is approximately 5% chance the hit deals at least 4 points of damage through the armour. The combat armour is clearly essentially impervious to bullets, barring a freak accident or a very large number of hits. I am not convinced this is fine, unless the devs intend for the Combat Armour to turn you into a terminator.

My solution to this would be to lose a few points of Armour Piercing on the gauss rifle (3d6 to 4d6 is already a huge upgrade from the previous slug thrower) and bring down the combat armour's Protection by an equal number. This way the enormous gulf between the gauss rifle and previous slug throwers would become less enormous.



I suspect you are getting the ASDFASD ammo and super sighting aids from the Central Supply Catalogue, which is filled to the brim with bad ideas that should not be introduced to the game due to its designers not comprehending their own game system or mathematics in general. The CSC (and certain other supplements) obviously and quickly unbalance the game with their rampant modifiers on modifiers and ludicrous equipment profiles.

 

[Nerhesi]

That's a lot of negativity and incorrect info (average skill is a 2, above average 3, well known professional 4, legend 5). Also basic laser-sight is in the core rules.

If you are comparing corebook TL10 or 11 weapons, make sure ur comparing to equivalent armour and using the correct modifiers. Not the mods you or I feel make sense while ignoring others (short range, above avg skill, sight, aim, etc)

I'll post some accurate TL comparisons later as I'm out now.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Laser sight scopes in Traveller are not like our laser sight scopes. Extreme distance is no problem for them. Don't piss off guys that use gauss rifles.

An attack with an Effect of 6 or more always inflicts at least one point of damage on someone wearing armor.

 

[Nerhesi]

Core Rule Book only:

Defensive Target is wearing Combat Armour (TL12, 88,000 cost armour). Target will be dodging, behind cover.

Our player is going to be a competent Merc (otherwise why the hell is he shooting someone in combat armour aside from a great story!). Competent Merc is barely out of chargen with 3 in his Gun combat skill (combination of connections and advancements). This is inline with Core rulebook blurb that 1 is barely competent, 2 is average, and 3 is above average. Our competent Merc has the following total modifiers:

+3 skill
+1 from characteristic
+1 skill augmentation (50,000 TL12)
+1 from laser sight
+1 from aiming
+1 from short range

That is a +8 to hit. This is actually fairly trivial and there only significant cost spent here is the skill-augmentation (which is still still less than the combat armour).

+8 to hit rolling 4D AP5. Assuming an 8 is rolled, and the target is dodging (-2 lets say). You will still hit with a +6. Average damage is therefore 14 (4D), plus 5 AP, plus 6 from effect. That is 25 damage, of which 8 goes through the armour.

8 damage on average. Can you do less? sure? But can you also do a lot more? yes absolutely. This is also not taking into account the possible Burst or Auto due to the Auto 3 value of the Gauss rifle.

The conclusion here is that armour values are not high at all, but in fact meticulously balanced. It is almost as if several people spent months actually running the numbers and doing tests on this stuff! I know, very weird in today's non-D&D RPG corners...

I suspect you are getting the ASDFASD ammo and super sighting aids from the Central Supply Catalogue, which is filled to the brim with bad ideas that should not be introduced to the game due to its designers not comprehending their own game system or mathematics in general. The CSC (and certain other supplements) obviously and quickly unbalance the game with their rampant modifiers on modifiers and ludicrous equipment profiles

You suspicion is only partially correct - Ammo was used in my initial example (but not in this post) and no sighting aids from CSC were used (which aren't superior anyways). Rather strange in a mildly funny way that you feel comfortable making assumptions about products, and people, when you admit you haven't researched what you're talking about... Should you decide to, you will find that the CSC actually does not add a single new +1 to gun-combat. It adds much needed and appreciated options for different armour, weapons, ammunition, etc.

 

[Xsi]

The close combat rules require more thought. At least they need to be worded better, if this is not the intended interpretation. As they stand currently there is no way to get out of close combat without taking an attack of opportunity with +2 DM from your opponent. Another rather silly situation is made possible by the current rules: consider a bunch of marines each armed with a laser rifles facing a single armored combatant wielding a katana. The katana man moves within close range of all of the marines, locking them all in close combat. Each marine can either club the katana man with their rifle, a course of action which certainly will not accomplish much against an armoured opponent, or move out of the engagement granting the katana man a free attack to cut him down with. Having a sword should not let you break the action economy.

This is something that concerns me too. A combatant, for example the competent Merc mentioned earlier, would have an easy time broadswording his opponents down as they try to disengage him. I agree with Sevain that the action economy is rather iffy here. As for the damage part, it's a given that a massive hunk of sharp metal deals terrible damage in close combat, but it could be argued that so does a musket ball.

Cloth armour is currently cheaper, more protective and equally available compared to flak jackets but slightly heavier. I suspect the names have switched places on the armour list.

Seeing as flak armor is basically cloth armor as described by the book (body suit made from ballistic cloth), I would in turn suggest that flak armor should be renamed as ballistic armor. One could also play around with the stats a bit and give an affordable and formidable armor option before TL 10. Maybe add an anti-explosives bit to flak/ballistic armor, as modern flak does that very much better than stopping bullets.

I suspect you are getting the ASDFASD ammo and super sighting aids from the Central Supply Catalogue, which is filled to the brim with bad ideas that should not be introduced to the game due to its designers not comprehending their own game system or mathematics in general. The CSC (and certain other supplements) obviously and quickly unbalance the game with their rampant modifiers on modifiers and ludicrous equipment profiles.

You suspicion is only partially correct - Ammo was used in my initial example (but not in this post) and no sighting aids from CSC were used (which aren't superior anyways). Rather strange in a mildly funny way that you feel comfortable making assumptions about products, and people, when you admit you haven't researched what you're talking about... Should you decide to, you will find that the CSC actually does not add a single new +1 to gun-combat. It adds much needed and appreciated options for different armour, weapons, ammunition, etc.

Oh dear, the good old CSC! Just for the sake of getting the facts right, in CSC Advanced Combat Rifles are said to usually have AP rounds, giving them 3 points of armor penetration, or 4 for the Heavy Advanced Combat Rifles, making them somewhat effective against combat armor before TL 12 and gauss guns. That is, if you don't delve into the Sword Worlds book with its' TL8, 5D6 damage .50 caliber pistols and TL5, 5D6 damage sledgehammers...

As for gun combat bonuses, the CSC does have the TL 9 Personal Heads-Up Display which adds +2 DM to all hit rolls at all ranges to keyed weapons, and TL 10 Holographic Sights that add a +1 DM to hit rolls for shots made at medium range. Of the sights, the laser sight costs mere 200 Cr., the HUD 1500 Cr, and the Holographic Sight 1000 Cr - all too good to pass on, to be honest.

It's good to keep in mind, however, that equipping a good TL12 Imperial soldier costs at least 150000 in credits (with combat armor, gauss rifle, a single implant), plus a few thousand credits for other gear. Taking him down with a couple of guys with gauss rifles and a rocket launcher provided by the charming gentleman with the strange solar cross tattoo costs around 6000 credits.

Of course, having high protection ratings in game means that low TL combatants cannot realistically harm high TL opponents in combat. I take this to be a design choice, as the new Smart weapon mechanics this means that high-TL armored military combatants are very, very fearsome opponents for fighters not equipped as well.

 

[Nerhesi]

Oh dear, the good old CSC! Just for the sake of getting the facts right, in CSC Advanced Combat Rifles are said to usually have AP rounds, giving them 3 points of armor penetration, or 4 for the Heavy Advanced Combat Rifles, making them somewhat effective against combat armor before TL 12 and gauss guns. That is, if you don't delve into the Sword Worlds book with its' TL8, 5D6 damage .50 caliber pistols and TL5, 5D6 damage sledgehammers...

The no longer have in-built AP. Only Gauss weapons do (and sniper rifle, and some super high tech options)

As for gun combat bonuses, the CSC does have the TL 9 Personal Heads-Up Display which adds +2 DM to all hit rolls at all ranges to keyed weapons, and TL 10 Holographic Sights that add a +1 DM to hit rolls for shots made at medium range. Of the sights, the laser sight costs mere 200 Cr., the HUD 1500 Cr, and the Holographic Sight 1000 Cr - all too good to pass on, to be honest.

Sighting aids no longer stack, and they no longer even stack with the ballistic lens implant AND they're limited to a +1. The maximum bonus you get from any sighting aid, when combined with the minor-action aim bonus, is a +2. Total.

It's good to keep in mind, however, that equipping a good TL12 Imperial soldier costs at least 150000 in credits (with combat armor, gauss rifle, a single implant), plus a few thousand credits for other gear. Taking him down with a couple of guys with gauss rifles and a rocket launcher provided by the charming gentleman with the strange solar cross tattoo costs around 6000 credits.

Absolutely. Too many people forget that balance, outside of the players characters, must also take into account costs. We can assume players will improve over time, become competent, awesome, rich and great! But you can't assume the entire empire will arm every police officer in armour that is defeated by a weapon 1/10th of the cost. It will arm on a certain limited amount and even that will drain the economy.

Of course, having high protection ratings in game means that low TL combatants cannot realistically harm high TL opponents in combat. I take this to be a design choice, as the new Smart weapon mechanics this means that high-TL armored military combatants are very, very fearsome opponents for fighters not equipped as well.

IT is a design choice as you've stated Xsi and a Good Thing (tm). Otherwise, logically speaking, we must question the existence of these armour/weapons in the first place. If they do not fullfill a need (such as Combat armour protection vs AK47s), then why are corporations making them? Why are governments buying them? etc etc... The benefit to cost ratio has to be somewhat attractive. Aka, dont put my people in 1-3 MCr cost battle dress that is defeated by an 800 Cr RPG or Combat rifle (Was an MGT1 problem for a long time, fixed by the vehicles handbook)