[Traveller Battlefield Dev] New Combat Rules to Try!

[Yenaldlooshi]

Per BATTLEFIELD DEV: "Ranged attacks cannot be made in close combat."

Per Core Rules: " Only single-handed ranged weapons, such as pistols, may make ranged attacks against a target in close combat. Note that a pistol can be parried in close combat, representing the weapon getting knocked aside."

Why fix the core rule when it wasn't broke? Melee combat ensues and one character has a pistol, but under BATTLEFIELD DEV, the other character is magically immune to being shot by this pistol during the struggle? Someone has never had training in weapons retention tactics during hand to hand it is shows. When I clear an indoor area in close quarters and blind corners, I keep my pistol in a tight two handed grip near the chest so that it can't be taken away from me in a hand to hand struggle, and you can bet I can fire it in melee.

By they way, I LOVED that you could parry a pistol in the core rules. A lot of game rules leave that out.

 

[whakomatic]

I am not a fan of a change to all or nothing AP rules. A projectile loses a lot of energy in penetrating armor, so a reduction of damage makes sense. It also makes sense that for lasers as they have to burn through any protection to damage a target. Their new AP 10 or 14 value means they can reliably damage a target in most armor.

 

[harunmushod]

"STRENGTH IN MELEE
"When a melee attack is successful, the attacker adds their STR DM to the damage rolled for the weapon,
in addition to the Effect of the attack roll. Bigger things hit harder."

I think that is already accounted for in the attack role as that will add to the damage modifiers granted by the attack effect. I think it's double counting for strength in melee.

Broadly speaking, as part of a group of D&D4e players, I like the changes.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I like it.
My initial comment is that the AP X Trait should include “convert to Spacecraft scale by dividing AP by 10, and rounding down”.
I also would have liked to see an expansion on Melee (unarmed) or (martial arts), but I can send my draft to you

 

[Heretic]

I like the AP changes (and the all-or-nothing armour). They remind me of a Cyberpunk variant that I used to play; it attempted to replicate the NIJ Armor Standards. Have you followed a similar approach?

And....Good! Lasers are back to being terrifying. This is why they're banned at every law level!

Please don't get depressed if some people dislike the new rules. As I'm sure you've noticed, there's a subset of gamers that is very resistant to changes in their preferred Rules System. They usually come round, eventually.

 

[Dracous]

Under the new rules, Ablat is now useless versus all laser weapons. The use case for Ablat has vanished and can hence the armour can be removed from the rules.

 

[Dracous]

Can I just confirm how weapon damage works now. If the AP less than the protection, still roll for damage and apply protection as a reduction, ignoring AP?

 

[Talon Greyfeather]

Can I just confirm how weapon damage works now. If the AP less than the protection, still roll for damage and apply protection as a reduction, ignoring AP?

According to the new rules:
Armour that has a higher Protection score will completely ignore the AP trait and be immune to it.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I like what AP is attempting to do , I just have some issues with it.
I like effect being added to penetration or to damage - how about splitting it between them on a case by case basis, player choice??
For melee weapons does the Str bonus add to penetration?

Penetrating armour should cost something energy/damage wise.
resurrecting from MT
low pen - AP of weapon is equal to or exceeds AV - lose one damage die
high pen - AP of weapon is equal to or exceeds 2xAV - no damage reduction.

 

[Heretic]

Let's try a couple of examples, just to make sure I understand
1. Attacker has a Gauss Pistol (AP 8) and the target has a Flak Jacket (Protection +5). 8 is more than 5, so the armour does nothing to stop the gauss needle. Roll damage dice and, of course, add any Effect from the 'to hit' roll. Presumably, if there is any Effect, the attacker would choose to add to damage. In this case, there's no point in adding to AP.
2. Attacker has Frag Grenade (AP4) and the target has a Flak Jacket (Protection +5). 4 is less than 5 so the armour will ignore the AP effect. Roll damage, subtract 5 and add any effect from the 'to hit' roll.

OBSERVATIONS
I might be reading too much into this, but it does seem like an attempt to illustrate that Weapons and Armour are in a contest throughout the Tech Levels. The ACR (TL10) and Lasers (TL9+) make flak jackets (TL7) obsolete . But... Reflec, TL10 cloth armour, and Combat Environment Suits all work well until the Gauss Rifle appears at TL12.

This change may affect the style of play in non-military scenarios. A TL9 Protec Suit is just a style statement when you're on a world that has laser pistols and gauss pistols (although, it might still be useful against TL7 autopistols) and I really want to see the 'official' stats for the TL15 Sindalian Officer's Revolver...

 

[MongooseMatt]

I might be reading too much into this, but it does seem like an attempt to illustrate that Weapons and Armour are in a contest throughout the Tech Levels.

That is certainly part of it.

Just where the lines between TL are, of course, is very much up for debate

 

[JustEastOfTheEdge]

INITIATIVE changes are very good: in fact, we use this approach already. Speeds up the game.

MULTIPLE ENEMIES: adds potentially a lot of bookkeeping, not something we'd use.

MULTIPLE ATTACKS: I always assume the single attack roll actually represents multiple strikes anyway, so not needed.

CHARGING: very good, simple addition.

AP changes: if it ain't broke...

 

[Vormaerin]

Under the new rules, Ablat is now useless versus all laser weapons. The use case for Ablat has vanished and can hence the armour can be removed from the rules.

all anti Energy armors are specifically stated to stack with a non energy specific armor. You wear ablat or reflec over your cloth armor if you are concerned about lasers.

 

[Vormaerin]

"STRENGTH IN MELEE
"When a melee attack is successful, the attacker adds their STR DM to the damage rolled for the weapon,
in addition to the Effect of the attack roll. Bigger things hit harder."

I think that is already accounted for in the attack role as that will add to the damage modifiers granted by the attack effect. I think it's double counting for strength in melee.

Broadly speaking, as part of a group of D&D4e players, I like the changes.

It is also already part of the rules currently. That's not a change.

 

[Vormaerin]

I like group initiative. It's just more efficient/faster and the rare times it is dramatically important whether a specific character acts before a specific NPC, you can just adjudicate that as a special case. Also like Tactics being good instead of a crapshoot. Definite endorsement for this change.

The melee changes look good. Giving the defender their stat bonus is nice. Opposed rolls will favor the more skilled character to a greater degree than the old system, especially if both characters have a positive stat bonus. Also makes the grapple rules less divergent from the rest of melee. Endorse this.

Applying opposed rolls to gun combat: not a fan. Guns don't need to be more accurate. Yeah, missing a lot violates the 'rule of fun' but too much accuracy increases combat lethality, which Traveller does not particularly need. High Dex characters might be harder to hit under the proposed system, but most folks will be easier to hit if the target is 2d6 + dodge -2 rather than the current 8+target's dodge bonus. Do not endorse.

The AP system is okay, but it does not serve my purposes. My characters play with civilian gear. Their armor is mostly 3, 5, or 8 and their weapons do 2 or 3d6. There's hardly any AP and it is only a few points when there is. This lets them do a fair amount of combat without folks getting one shotted or in the hospital for a week after every fight. The new AP system gives a lot of weapons enough AP to render light concealable armor ineffective. In the abstract, it isn't a bad system. Definitely not going to be applied in my campaign, though.

I do like that lasers return to their CT scary levels, however.

 

[Sonereal]

Lot of thoughts for my first impression but big ones:

1. Not a fan you can't fire a one-handed ranged weapon in combat anymore. Treat it as a short-range attack that can be parried for free.
2. Probably can cut down on the number of rolls if target DEX DM/Melee was applied to the attacker's roll as a penalty and declaring Effect 0 successes glancing blows.
3. AP rules make me a little sad because so many stat lines will need rebalanced but c'est la vie. It'll grow on me.
4. Initiative changes are fine. The optional rule is very close to Wild Talents' way of breaking combat rounds down into Declaration, Roll, and Resolve phases. In that case, could cut down on a whole lot of rolling by having declarations made in ascending order of INT and resolving rolls in blocks organized by DEX DM. No rolling necessary, Tactics can be added for Declaration initiative, Ambush adds +6 to the Ambusher's DEX and INT for the first round, and it now pays to be quick of hand *and* quick of mind. Don't really see the appeal in rolling group initiative at the top of every round.

These are my personal preferences of course. I like minimizing "administrative" dice rolls in combat.

 

[Geir]

I didn't notice the removal of one-handed weapons from melee combat before... not a fan at all.
How can we 'struggle for the gun and it just went off'? That also went well with the 'disarm an opponent' Grappling task. Now I guess the gun just jams after someone closes to hit you with a stick and you can't even use it as a lump of metal to bash someone with (yes, I'm not a fan of plastic guns, but that's not the point). And it looks like all the Grappling rules went out the window?

 

[Arkathan]

Do the new Dodge and Parry mechanics still count as a Reaction, prompting a -1DM to the next set of actions?

 

[Vormaerin]

And it looks like all the Grappling rules went out the window?

Oh? I didn't get that impression. I just figured they were making punching and kicking into an opposed test like grappling already was. Ditching grappling would be dumb.

 

[Vormaerin]

Do the new Dodge and Parry mechanics still count as a Reaction, prompting a -1DM to the next set of actions?

Pretty sure they are just replacing the 8+ target number with an opposed roll. If the defender's choice to oppose is a reaction, that's a MASSIVE buff to melee. I can't imagine that's the intent.