Dodging and Diving for Cover

[Nerhesi]

Simplification is not done by adding an opposed roll though... that would complicate.

As for your need to have punish a dodge action, as a reaction, each dodge/reaction gives them a -1 on their next action.

So if they end up dodging 5 attacks, -5

 

[GuernseyMan]

Wholeheartedly agree. Each reaction should cost or there's no point in ganging up on an enemy.

It's a valid tactic in real life and should remain so in game.

Personally I like the -2 initiative penalty from v1. Each reaction you take delays your next action. Gives real tactical decision as to whether to take it and fight back or dodge and maybe get shot again before you can act!

 

[Nerhesi]

I actually do like that better as well...

 

[Dracous]

Simplification is not done by adding an opposed roll though... that would complicate.

Guess I have to disagree there. I don't see it as a complication. Additionally, My players have been involved in several game systems. They want to "do something" on a reaction. It's natural for them to be actively involved in the dodge attempt. Many times I have to tell them to put their die down as they declare a dodge.

As for your need to have punish a dodge action, as a reaction, each dodge/reaction gives them a -1 on their next action.

And by your own argument on bane/boon earlier amounts to no penalty at all. In practice I see this as well. One of my players has said to another "Always dodge, it reduces the damage by 1".

So if they end up dodging 5 attacks, -5

If they get attacked 5 times where the only penalty on the attacker is -1 to hit (original MGTv1 mechanic) or -1 to -3 to hit (new MGTv2 mechanic), then they are pretty much dead.

So I think the essence of the discussion here is, you don't want to apply the Bane/Boon mechanic, or harsher one off penalties because you prefer a mechanic with a mild impact but has a cumulative effect. Or in other words, don't mess too much with the current system. OK by me.

 

[allanimal]

Personally I like the -2 initiative penalty from v1. Each reaction you take delays your next action. Gives real tactical decision as to whether to take it and fight back or dodge and maybe get shot again before you can act!

I am glad that they got rid of all the initiative shuffling in this version.
Man that was hard to deal with...

 

[GuernseyMan]

We used tokens to keep track of initiative shifts. Worked like a dream.

My explanation of how it worked is further up this topic.

 

[Nerhesi]

As for your need to have punish a dodge action, as a reaction, each dodge/reaction gives them a -1 on their next action.

And by your own argument on bane/boon earlier amounts to no penalty at all. In practice I see this as well. One of my players has said to another "Always dodge, it reduces the damage by 1".

[/quote]

Correct - that is still more functionally viable then "never dodge, because you'll always be hit anyways". Technically, I'm not even in favour of having a penalty when someone dodges. You spent time training the skill, or you have a high dex, or both, etc etc - then you deserve to reap the reward of a dodge. Maybe "limit" it in terms of how you have a limited amount of actions, but I find that even passive systems work best here, in practice, it would be akin to having the target's atheletics(dex) as a penalty, always. Simple, effective, impactful, quick. However, this is too big of a change for Mongoose I believe.

So if they end up dodging 5 attacks, -5

If they get attacked 5 times where the only penalty on the attacker is -1 to hit (original MGTv1 mechanic) or -1 to -3 to hit (new MGTv2 mechanic), then they are pretty much dead.

[/quote]
The MGT1 penalty on the attacker was -2 for dodging into cover (then you would add the cover penalty to the attack), so dodging into cover could be up to a -8. In MGT2, currently it is your skill and at most a -2 for cover, so anywhere from a -2 to -7 or so.

So I think the essence of the discussion here is, you don't want to apply the Bane/Boon mechanic, or harsher one off penalties because you prefer a mechanic with a mild impact but has a cumulative effect. Or in other words, don't mess too much with the current system. OK by me.

I like to not punish players for actions that are based on effort/time invested into skills. It's like punishing you for raising your gun-combat. I like to have meaningful, not superfluous mechanics so that players (and GMs) can appreciate the robust mechanics in system that helps support the story.

You nailed it when you said don't mess "too much" with the current system. We definitely need skill playing more of an impact, and not just random rolls or flat modifiers vs skill based (offense vs defense)

Sam W.

 

[arcador]

Comparing with before, the most used cover effect stays the same - 2 from cover and 2 from dive for cover (or dodge with +2 dm). The only cover which gave 4 in the previous set was pillbox cover which, at least in my sessions, was almost never encountered.

In my experience "high level" combats require the use of good armour + combat gadgets as the hit modifiers can quickly go past 4+; 5+.

Of course, we should not forget range. Beyond 100m it is -4 unless scoped, which requires aim action to utilize. In MGT1 the "net" range penalties were (almost) the same.

All this brings the combat into a fine balance between tactical decisions and strategic thinking. There is still enough random to disrupt a well thought plan and still enough stability to be encouraged to think tactically.

 

[Nerhesi]

Comparing with before, the most used cover effect stays the same - 2 from cover and 2 from dive for cover (or dodge with +2 dm). The only cover which gave 4 in the previous set was pillbox cover which, at least in my sessions, was almost never encountered.

Previously, cover could give you up to a -6 . The table clarifies that. This is further evident in the sighting aids that could ignore "up to 4 points of cover DM" - which means that the -6 cover can't be ignored using that x-ray sighting aid.

This -2 to -6 could be stacked with -2 for dodging into cover. For a -4 to -8.

In my experience "high level" combats require the use of good armour + combat gadgets as the hit modifiers can quickly go past 4+; 5+.

Two things here:

a) +4/+5 to hit modifier is low level combat, assuming you weren't really skilled or had excellent rolls on DEX, which would mean +6 or higher! +1 for aim, +1 for laser dot/similar sighting aid, +2 for skill, +1 for Characteristic DM. High level combat could hit 8+ easily with implants and improved sighting aids. A modifier to hit someone of +3 or lower usually only happened in the rare event of playing a civilian, that happened to be jailed, probably naked, and just subdued a guard for his colt .45 (no scope).

b) And, armour was terrible in 'high level' combat, as the damage simply blew away whatever protection you had. I'm very happy MGT2 addresses this somewhat with improved armour values - but the problem still exists somewhat (FGMP, Ammunition types, etc).

Of course, we should not forget range. Beyond 100m it is -4 unless scoped, which requires aim action to utilize. In MGT1 the "net" range penalties were (almost) the same.

I think we should forget range, completely why?

a) Rifles (the common range group), suffered no penalties in MGT1 for up to 250m.
b) In MGT2, a trivial cost (scope), will ignore penalties up to even more ridiculous ranges (see any TL10+ rifle)

All this brings the combat into a fine balance between tactical decisions and strategic thinking. There is still enough random to disrupt a well thought plan and still enough stability to be encouraged to think tactically.

Except - there is no fine balance at all. It is all strategic (I think what you meant to say, not tactical)... in that, any hobo with a gun can hit you in MGT2 no matter what your "tactical" plan is (unless you've got some excellent Athletics AND you're dodging behind cover). Strategically, you should be making all plans to avoid being hit - unless you are sure your armour will absorb the majority of the punishment.

Still, most of my players enjoy a challenge - and that includes two aspects. Well laid strategic plans, and the excitement associated with some random aspect. We need to make sure that the "random" aspect can remain so, rather than it become a trivial aspect in which the die-rolls are superfluous (which would also translate into, why even have dice or that roll?)

 

[arcador]

I agree, you present more accurate view than myself. Also your power level is more powerful than mine

6 cover? How do you obtain 6 cover? The cover section states 4 cover for pillbox type. I always assumed the table showed cover+reaction(or prone). It is never stated in the table but since the book is filled with little inconsistencies I made the leap here.

Also don't forget there are some things participants can throw - smoke, thermal screens, emps which can obstruct some gadgets. Those can be rarely used, yet can still provide some advantage (or reduce advantage).

Scope requires an aim action to use. It is not much but sometimes can make a difference - there will be situations where the combatant will have to suffer the -4 penalty even he has a scope.

Yes - it seems we speak of the same things although we use the terms differently. By tactical I mean taking decisions in combat - cover, positions, utilization of equipment. By strategic I mean deciding how to equip, beforehand tactics and approach to engagement.

---

(deleted a part of the reply as it contributed nothing to the original topic)

 

[MongooseMatt]

b) In MGT2, a trivial cost (scope), will ignore penalties up to even more ridiculous ranges

_If_ you use the Aim action - a very important distinction!

 

[Nerhesi]

b) In MGT2, a trivial cost (scope), will ignore penalties up to even more ridiculous ranges

_If_ you use the Aim action - a very important distinction!

True Matt - I find that its almost always used though, because the Aim action also gives you a +1 AND also gives you a bonus of whatever sighting aid you have.