Oh come on,get a grip - weapon dmg silly

[atpollard]

the INT+EDU restriction on skills

This never seemed like a real restriction to me.
Even an average joe should be able to get 14 skills before hitting the limit.
That's about 6+ terms in the basic chargen or 2+ terms in advanced chargen.

By the time you hit 14 skills, it's too late - the character is a superhero.

[No argument about the importance of the survival roll, though.]

 

[Delerium]

Fair comments EDG.

 

[Jame Rowe]

the INT+EDU restriction on skills

This never seemed like a real restriction to me.
Even an average joe should be able to get 14 skills before hitting the limit.
That's about 6+ terms in the basic chargen or 2+ terms in advanced chargen.

By the time you hit 14 skills, it's too late - the character is a superhero.

[No argument about the importance of the survival roll, though.]

I've never liked the INT+EDU skill limit; I prefer a more CT Advanced Chargen method. The skill limit is too limiting when done that way--I actually want my characters to have a good range of skills.

 

[aspqrz]

I've never liked the INT+EDU skill limit; I prefer a more CT Advanced Chargen method. The skill limit is too limiting when done that way--I actually want my characters to have a good range of skills.

You can do that simply enough ...

a) have more skill chances as per Merc/HG/Scouts/MP (or Skill Points a la the old White Dwarf article)

but balance this by

b) having more Skills and make them rather more specific than the small number of overgeneralised ones that are part of the core system

That way you get more capable characters but not ones that are supermen, because they are more capable in a more specific/limited areas :shock:

That's what I'm working on in my copious free time :wink:

YMMV of course.

Phil

 

[Jame Rowe]

Well ... I like it the way I've been doing it, but show me yours when you're finished and I'll take a look at it.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Still, one could tell that Merc was truly from the heart of GDW's wargaming background -which, since this was...1978? pretty much where we all were from too.

well, look a things that came later. Striker is one of the most hardcore mini's games out there. Mega-traveller combat is basically a mini's game as well (which was the realisation that made me grok it at last)

They were totally wargamers

 

[Cleon the Mad]

I don't know what the authors were thinking.

Fusion Pistol TL 17 Average dmg per shot 16

Fusion Pistol TL 18 Average dmg per shot 18 (12.5% more)


A whole new super-duper teach level and guns leap up a mighty 12.5%??




TL 18 Matter Disintegrator.

With a 2d6 dmg (effectively ignores armour).
Average 7 dmg

Might be able to disintegrate a cat.



TL 7 Bow 2d6 dmg

Same damage as a TL 18 Disintegrator on an unarmoured target




bleh


Has anyone got any sensible hi-tech options for weapons such as these?

Going to ignore the possible flame war happening and just reply to the OP's comments. I WILL state that my replies are ONLY based upon such. I am NOT trying to be a sycophant for MongTrav, but at the same time I do overall enjoy it.

Now for each point:

1) For the two fusion pistols, I guess I didn't look at it doing 12.5 percent more damage. I'm a bit tired so not sure if I feel that is too unweildy or not, I'd have to think on that. To me I'm not seeing an extra +2 damage per TL as that big of a deal though. It's at least consistant, a lot of weapons add about +2 points of damage per improvement if you look.

Guess for me I'm just seeing it as 2 more points of damage, not calculating the actual percentage. So I'm leaning toward to be honest just answering "um..yeah, and...?". But again I am tired, was up all last night doing a Windows reinstall, didn't sleep so maybe I need to rethink when well rested.

2) The matter disintegrator. Be honest, you do need to read the description of the weapon. It indicates it works better on denser targets. Thus yes, vrs someone unarmored it only does 2d6. But it adds damage based on the armor rating of the target, not the effect roll of the attack. So, some guy in Combat Armor or Battle dress is actually going to get mauled and be a pile of ashes. Give an example, AR of TL14 Combat armor is 16. That gun is going to do 2d6+16 damage to the poor guy in his TL14 combat armor. The best defence against that weapon is to fight naked. Otherwise, shoot a disintegrator into a swimming pool, not much water will be disintegrated. Shoot it at a lead weight, it will make the lead weight ashes. Density of the item is a factor based on how they describe it.

Guess it to me is a weapon with a specific application, and it says such in the description. A TL17+ soldier would probably lug about both a disintegrator and a fusion pistol. When he faces troops in heavy armor, he uses his disintegrator. When they aren't in heavy armor, he switches to his fusion pistol. Could even see an "over/under" setup like an Assault rifle with a grenade launcher, if the fusion pistol is small enough to be mounted under a disintegrator rifle.

Anyway, my thoughts. Of course agree to disagree, just don't call me a sycophant if I post an opposing view.

 

[Delerium]

2) The matter disintegrator. Be honest, you do need to read the description of the weapon. It indicates it works better on denser targets. Thus yes, vrs someone unarmored it only does 2d6. But it adds damage based on the armor rating of the target, not the effect roll of the attack. So, some guy in Combat Armor or Battle dress is actually going to get mauled and be a pile of ashes. Give an example, AR of TL14 Combat armor is 16. That gun is going to do 2d6+16 damage to the poor guy in his TL14 combat armor. T

(2) "need to read the description" Right. Well, unfortunately, there is nothing that says you ignore the armour of the target for damage reduction. There is no special rule stated for this gun.
Therefore it must apply.
As per the description , extra damage for Effect is based on the target's armour, not the dice roll,as you rightly say, BUT damage is also deducted as per normal rules for armour damage reduction.

eg. vs armour 18

2d6 dmg + 18 (effect bonus based on armour) -18 for the armour itself


eg vs armour 6
2d6 dmg + 6(effect bonus based on armour) - 6 for the armour itself


Hence the thing will always do 2d6 damage, to a Battle Dress guy, a cat , a lamppost or a chicken.

I think if you ignore the standard damage reduction from armour, it works much better, but that is not what is written.

 

[Travellingdave]

I think if you ignore the standard damage reduction from armour, it works much better, but that is not what is written.

He's right. Technically, it reads as if it just negates the armour, not ignores it. Now, I interpreted it as if the armour is ignored and added to damage effect, so obviously the implication is there in the description, but the text is not explicit in this regard.

 

[Cleon the Mad]

2) The matter disintegrator. Be honest, you do need to read the description of the weapon. It indicates it works better on denser targets. Thus yes, vrs someone unarmored it only does 2d6. But it adds damage based on the armor rating of the target, not the effect roll of the attack. So, some guy in Combat Armor or Battle dress is actually going to get mauled and be a pile of ashes. Give an example, AR of TL14 Combat armor is 16. That gun is going to do 2d6+16 damage to the poor guy in his TL14 combat armor. T

(2) "need to read the description" Right. Well, unfortunately, there is nothing that says you ignore the armour of the target for damage reduction. There is no special rule stated for this gun.
Therefore it must apply.
As per the description , extra damage for Effect is based on the target's armour, not the dice roll,as you rightly say, BUT damage is also deducted as per normal rules for armour damage reduction.

eg. vs armour 18

2d6 dmg + 18 (effect bonus based on armour) -18 for the armour itself


eg vs armour 6
2d6 dmg + 6(effect bonus based on armour) - 6 for the armour itself


Hence the thing will always do 2d6 damage, to a Battle Dress guy, a cat , a lamppost or a chicken.

I think if you ignore the standard damage reduction from armour, it works much better, but that is not what is written.

I'll admit I was going by what was implied based on the description. But that is in part what I meant (and I admit didn't word well in my reply here) when I said read the description. Again, it works better the denser the target.

But even if you go with what you wrote consider this then. A bow yes does 2d6. But to a man in TL 14 combat armor that 2d6 arrow will just bounce off unless the person gets a mighty fine effect roll, and even then it will only do a point or two at most. That's JUST using the rules and ignoring how the heck an arrow can penetrate combat armor anyway, even with a high effect roll. The disintegrator is guarenteed to do 2d6 period. Way it's written, you shoot someone standing on the otherside of a bonded superdense wall (TL14+ hull metal)...it will hit the guy for 2d6 damage, if the hull metal wall counts as "armor". That arrow is only doing 2d6 if the person is stark naked. That disintegrator is doing 2d6 to someone regardless of what they are wearing, including the best armor money and TL14+ can buy. So again, it becomes the weapon of choice against heavy armor even if the guy in TL14 combat armor or battle dress is taking 2d6 damage or 2d6 + AR (armor rating) damage. An arrow will just bounce off the armor, or shatter like a twig depending on if it hits flat on or deflects off of the armor. So even more so, I can see an over/under disintegrator/fusion pistol setup for a TL17 soldier. If the opposing troops decide to wear light armor thinking they will get hit for 2d6 from a disintegrator anyway, the TL17 soldier uses his fusion "pistol" mounted under his disintegrator rifle instead. If they come at him with TL14 or better combat armor, then that disintegrator is doing 2d6 each and every shot no matter what they use as armor.

Guarneteed 2d6 no MATTER what the guy is wearing isn't horrid. Again not like the soldier has to always use that weapon if he's facing less heavily armored troops.

And if you do go with what I feel is implied..then the poor guy in Combat Armor is still taking 2d6 + 16 or whatever his AR might be. 2d6 + 16 with no way to mitigate it. But even a straight 2d6 with no way to mitigate it isn't horrid if you can ignore the combat armor rating.

 

[Bygoneyrs]

I don't know about many of you, but in my campaign I always work out a handout for my players of the types of standard weapons available to them in the game. I make my own modifications to what-ever stats I use for my own game specific campaign and that always has surved me well this past 25+ years. I hardly ever use off the shelf standard book items, but rather as a GM perfer to "tweak" things to fit my own campaign.

Penn

 

[AKAmra]

2) The matter disintegrator. Be honest, you do need to read the description of the weapon. It indicates it works better on denser targets. Thus yes, vrs someone unarmored it only does 2d6. But it adds damage based on the armor rating of the target, not the effect roll of the attack. So, some guy in Combat Armor or Battle dress is actually going to get mauled and be a pile of ashes. Give an example, AR of TL14 Combat armor is 16. That gun is going to do 2d6+16 damage to the poor guy in his TL14 combat armor. T

(2) "need to read the description" Right. Well, unfortunately, there is nothing that says you ignore the armour of the target for damage reduction. There is no special rule stated for this gun.
Therefore it must apply.
As per the description , extra damage for Effect is based on the target's armour, not the dice roll,as you rightly say, BUT damage is also deducted as per normal rules for armour damage reduction.

eg. vs armour 18

2d6 dmg + 18 (effect bonus based on armour) -18 for the armour itself


eg vs armour 6
2d6 dmg + 6(effect bonus based on armour) - 6 for the armour itself


Hence the thing will always do 2d6 damage, to a Battle Dress guy, a cat , a lamppost or a chicken.

I think if you ignore the standard damage reduction from armour, it works much better, but that is not what is written.

2d6 damage, ignore armor, Effect applies as normal - sounds good to me. I don't see this as a big issue, simple house rule fix. I have never seen an RPG that didn't need house rules (for taste if nothing else).

 

[Delerium]

Yeah right, yet another house rule.......

Just have a look at all the forum posts talking about house rules that have been generated as a result of addressing incompleteness or oddities.

Something amiss I think, even thought the basis of the game is fine; but then the basis was unchanged from Ye Olde Days.....

I've played 10or more RPGs over 20 years, yet never ran into more than the very occasional need for house rules, at least not for important stuff.


At this rate, we are going to need

Book 7 House Rules Required to Fix Books 1-6


Book 8: House Rules to Fix 7


etc

Am I being cynical? Probably
Do I still enjoy the game? yes!

 

[klingsor]

I scarcely glanced at the really high tech stuff (TL >15) - I will never use it - but I did think the distribution of damage values was a little off - rifles were not sufficiently better than pistols. In reality there is a very significant difference in energy between them [1]. However I also tend towards the thought that if you are shot you are f**ked whatever round you were hit with [2] and I am trying not to get too worked up about this sort of thing anyway but it still bothers me.


Notes
1. Some typical figures for an auto pistol, assault rifle and rifle round.
Round Muzzle Energy
9 × 19mm Parabellum 475 J
5.56 × 45mm SS 109 NATO 1775 J
7.62 × 51mm NATO 2472 J

2. Excepting such toys as the .22 Flobert Cap unless they got really, really lucky.

 

[Bygoneyrs]

Ahhh "Delerium" needs a big group hug!!!

Yeah right, yet another house rule.......

Just have a look at all the forum posts talking about house rules that have been generated as a result of addressing incompleteness or oddities.

Something amiss I think, even thought the basis of the game is fine; but then the basis was unchanged from Ye Olde Days.....

I've played 10or more RPGs over 20 years, yet never ran into more than the very occasional need for house rules, at least not for important stuff.


At this rate, we are going to need

Book 7 House Rules Required to Fix Books 1-6


Book 8: House Rules to Fix 7


etc

Am I being cynical? Probably
Do I still enjoy the game? yes!

 

[Cleon the Mad]

Yeah right, yet another house rule.......

Just have a look at all the forum posts talking about house rules that have been generated as a result of addressing incompleteness or oddities.

Something amiss I think, even thought the basis of the game is fine; but then the basis was unchanged from Ye Olde Days.....

I've played 10or more RPGs over 20 years, yet never ran into more than the very occasional need for house rules, at least not for important stuff.


At this rate, we are going to need

Book 7 House Rules Required to Fix Books 1-6


Book 8: House Rules to Fix 7


etc

Am I being cynical? Probably
Do I still enjoy the game? yes!

Well..it's one weapon that doesn't perform in a way you'd like it to. I even pointed out that if it's "only" doing 2d6 vrs someone in combat armor, it's completly bypassing their armor. How many times can anyone take an average of 7 points of damage per hit? Maybe not always one shot, one kill lethality but if someone handed me a weapon and said "all you need to do is aim, and you'll do damage no matter WHAT it's dressed in. Dress it literally IN armor made of plate steel compacted as dense as we can without it becoming degenerate matter like what's found in the core of a white dwarf star and you'll do damage. Period." I'd not complain if I was a soldier.

That and all pencil and paper RPG's I've seen have some sort of errata sheet or need of at least minor tweaks to make them perfect. No, I'm not trying to be a MongTrav apologist nor am I a sycophant. If a developer were to e-mail me or if I met one at a convention, and they asked me what flaws I see I'd state them. For starters I see a lot of the wrong trade codes on a lot of the worlds in the Spinward Marches suppliment if you wish me to name a random one. But it is also an enjoyable game, enough so I can forgive said flaws.

I guess to be honest I keep seeing you complain about this weapon..and I keep wondering why, when it is stated to have a specific use, and it does that specific function well enough. It bypasses armor and hurts the person inside regardless of what armor he's wearing. If you feel it should do more, then..god forbid I mention it, do a house rule. If you can live with it, then don't. It's just that simple.

Or to put it another way, is the weapon THAT broken? To be honest, are you seeing a flaw when there isn't really one?

 

[Delerium]

Yes well I think we've wandered somewhat.

I was talking about the silly low increments in weapons at higher tech levels.

The disintegrator, was just one example, which if used as written,(i have no wish to restate my earlier post) is not even worth manufacturing. If modified with umpteen house rules and assumptions, anything is ok.


It all came about when my players happened upon a high TL gun. Imagine their sheer awe at the 12.5% dmg increment. /sarcasm

For me, 12.5% increase in dmg for a whole TL is absurd. You are welcome to differ. I am surprised anyone would, but there you go. Each to their own.

I think Traveller as it stands is working nicely. But these equipment and weapon issues need to be addressed, preferably in a big old update sheet or 2.

There are numerous other examples that have been pointed out by others, one regarding a crossbow comes to mind.

Does it matter? Not really, as much as its just a game, a game in which I guess most wont be using the high tech stuff anyway.

Bygoneyrs "Ahhh "Delerium" needs a big group hug!!! " <-- not really sure what you mean by that. I would prefer an errata sheet.
:?

 

[Cleon the Mad]

Yes well I think we've wandered somewhat.

I was talking about the silly low increments in weapons at higher tech levels.

The disintegrator, was just one example, which if used as written,(i have no wish to restate my earlier post) is not even worth manufacturing. If modified with umpteen house rules and assumptions, anything is ok.


It all came about when my players happened upon a high TL gun. Imagine their sheer awe at the 12.5% dmg increment. /sarcasm

For me, 12.5% increase in dmg for a whole TL is absurd. You are welcome to differ. I am surprised anyone would, but there you go. Each to their own.

I think Traveller as it stands is working nicely. But these equipment and weapon issues need to be addressed, preferably in a big old update sheet or 2.

There are numerous other examples that have been pointed out by others, one regarding a crossbow comes to mind.

Does it matter? Not really, as much as its just a game, a game in which I guess most wont be using the high tech stuff anyway.

Bygoneyrs "Ahhh "Delerium" needs a big group hug!!! " <-- not really sure what you mean by that. I would prefer an errata sheet.
:?

Le sigh. I will say one last time that if used AS written the disintegrator still does 2d6 damage to someone in armor no matter how thick the armor. That is how I understand it works as written. You seem to keep missing this point. That is without using any house rule, any thing else to modify the rules. An arrow from a bow will just bounce off or shatter against higher tech armor. Even "cloth" which is meant to be kevlar it will not do damage about 50 percent of the time unless it has a decent effect roll.

Look at it this way. The disintegrator GUARENTEES that you will damage the person REGARDLESS of what they wear for armor. That is without applying a house rule if I understand how the weapon works.

As for the fusion pistol, how much do you honestly expect per tech level? I'll ask this: Take a TL 6 slug throwing pistol. Compare to one made at TL 7. Would the TL 7 weapon do any more damage? How about a TL 8 one? Even a TL 5 one of about the same caliber, would it do less damage then the TL 6? We're talking about two fusion pistols only one TL apart. Unless some specific revolutionary change takes place at that TL that would effect that weapon the difference will be more of an evolutionary change then revolutionary.

Now if you wish to talk down to me and be borderline insulting and say "You are surprised anyone would differ" as if I am not as intelligent as you, I will THEN counter with I am surprised someone would nitpick as much as you. You seem to nitpick each and every point in this game, and overanalyze it to the point of absurdity. The whole post about Barbarians getting streetwise you seemed to do the same. So please, don't be so insulting. Some of your comments are truly borderline flames.

Feel free to make another borderline flame/snide remark. Or call me a sycophant. Or some other term simply because I dare to reply back and not instantly agree. (Hmmm..interesting, I'm not instantly agreeing, guess I'm not being your sycophant...). My last reply to you in at least this thread. It's not worth discussing ANYTHING with someone who comes close to posting flames like you do.

Goodday.

 

[Travellingdave]

Yeah right, yet another house rule.......
<snip>
Am I being cynical? Probably
Do I still enjoy the game? yes!

Delerium, I generally agree with you about the technical issues in Mercenary, but you may be casting a rather broad blanket with this post.

I think the new Traveller is good overall. Not perfect, but good. I've read/played a LOT of games in the last 10 years, and believe me, the errata/technical issues with this game are minor compared to many (look at the amount of errata D&D 3.0 generated -- so much that they did a new edition is record time).

And remember: House ruling is about making the game what YOU think it should be. That doesn't mean it isn't playable for many others as it stands.

Yes, I'd like to see Mongoose take the technical issues more seriously in future products. It's one of the reasons I post on this board. But I'd avoid lamenting about the state of the entire line at this point. Wait for High Guard for that. :wink:

 

[Delerium]

Yeah right, yet another house rule.......
<snip>
Am I being cynical? Probably
Do I still enjoy the game? yes!

Delerium, I generally agree with you about the technical issues in Mercenary, but you may be casting a rather broad blanket with this post.

I think the new Traveller is good overall. Not perfect, but good. I've read/played a LOT of games in the last 10 years, and believe me, the errata/technical issues with this game are minor compared to many (look at the amount of errata D&D 3.0 generated -- so much that they did a new edition is record time).

And remember: House ruling is about making the game what YOU think it should be. That doesn't mean it isn't playable for many others as it stands.

Yes, I'd like to see Mongoose take the technical issues more seriously in future products. It's one of the reasons I post on this board. But I'd avoid lamenting about the state of the entire line at this point. Wait for High Guard for that. :wink:

Dave, you might want to see what scores I gave in response to the post
"Whats the verdict on the supplements?".
I scored them all highly, with the exception of Mercenary which is a pig's ear in my and others' opinion.


Plus I continue to state and restate I enjoy the game, which indeed you just quoted me as saying.
"Do I still enjoy the game? yes!" <---

Totally agree with you about the D&D 3.0 thing, Dave. That wins an industry-standard award for wrecking a game. 4th Edition continues in that achievement of retarded excellence.

There is, after all, something to be said about the new (and old) Travellers somewhat minimalist approach. Less pitfalls. Perhaps.


I just think its hands up time, give us some errata or even a pdf addition for Mercenary. :wink:

Come on..gimme the errata!
I got a ARMP gun pointed right at you!

Oh..damn..its got no ammo, as they forgot to include it in the lists...

hehe