Sure, Traveller isn't a game *about* being in fights. But you can play the game such that, if there is a fight, it isn't a death sentence. One that resembles the fiction on which the game is based. The fact that there is no fantasy raise dead or instant healing alone is enough to discourage getting into random fights or standing in the open blazing away.
[Traveller Battlefield Dev] New Combat Rules to Try!
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
iainjcoleman
Banded Mongoose
The AP changes are dreadful. More finicky than the existing system, with less feeling of realism and inevitably a whole load of problematic edge cases. What is this for? What problem is it solving? It just feels entirely misconceived.
Removing the ability to use pistols in melee range is just daft. This should be reinstated. I would even go further, and allow both pistols and submachine guns to be used in melee range. This gives SMGs an actually useful niche.
Group initiative is not great. It leads to all or nothing outcomes, especially in a combat system as potentially deadly as Traveller. Consider a situation where group A wins initiative on round 1, and group B wins initiative on round 2. Either group A destroys group B before they get a chance to respond, or group B gets two full rounds of response in which to destroy group A. Doesn't seem great to me.
The new melee rules are pretty good. The charge rule in particular is one I can see my players enjoying.
Removing the ability to use pistols in melee range is just daft. This should be reinstated. I would even go further, and allow both pistols and submachine guns to be used in melee range. This gives SMGs an actually useful niche.
Group initiative is not great. It leads to all or nothing outcomes, especially in a combat system as potentially deadly as Traveller. Consider a situation where group A wins initiative on round 1, and group B wins initiative on round 2. Either group A destroys group B before they get a chance to respond, or group B gets two full rounds of response in which to destroy group A. Doesn't seem great to me.
The new melee rules are pretty good. The charge rule in particular is one I can see my players enjoying.
iainjcoleman
Banded Mongoose
The bottom line for me is that the existing Traveller combat rules are pretty good. They provide a good feeling of realism and tactical options with quite an elegant level of abstraction. If you're going to play around with the rules, I wouldn't start here. How about putting this thought and energy into the trade rules? They're virtually unchanged from Classic Traveller, and they're rather clunky and time consuming. I know my group would be much more interested in a more streamlined trading system than any changes to combat.
Sonereal
Mongoose
Can't you use Athletics (Dexterity)? Athletics rules say anything you can do with the physical characteristic DMs alone you can do with Athletics.
laughdad
Banded Mongoose
No ranged attacks within two meters? No way! 
I can buy penalties for firearm use at less than a meter, but a ban just does not comport with reality. Law enforcement and select military personnel commonly train for "extreme close quarters" engagements using both a pistol and a carbine (the M-4 type and variants in my case), and how to get the weapon on target even if the opponent is holding onto some part of the barrel or handguard. I specifically trained for engaging from retention (weapon in holster) at ranges under five feet--with the standard of putting three rounds into the target in under three seconds. With training you can consistently do it in far less time.
Keep in mind that a short-barreled assault rifle like the HK-416 with a 10.5" barrel is only 27" with the stock collapsed. A bullpup rifle like the Israeli Tavor or the Brit SA-80 are 29 and 30 inches long, respectively. IF I were expecting an extreme close quarter engagement and all I had was the HK, one technique would be tucking the stock under my arm to shorten the overall length of the weapon.
For examples of pistol use at extremely close ranges, see:
1. "Shot for Shot: "collateral" Alleyway Gunfight Breakdown" (
) by Larry Vickers. Larry is a retired SFOD-D ("Delta Force") operator. It's a super example
2. Close Quarters Shooting: Defensive Tactics (
)
All that said, parrying a ranged firearm at extremely close range (1 meter or less) makes sense from a rules standpoint. Having negative modifiers long-gun (anything bigger than a pistol) use at extremely close range also makes sense.
I can buy penalties for firearm use at less than a meter, but a ban just does not comport with reality. Law enforcement and select military personnel commonly train for "extreme close quarters" engagements using both a pistol and a carbine (the M-4 type and variants in my case), and how to get the weapon on target even if the opponent is holding onto some part of the barrel or handguard. I specifically trained for engaging from retention (weapon in holster) at ranges under five feet--with the standard of putting three rounds into the target in under three seconds. With training you can consistently do it in far less time.Keep in mind that a short-barreled assault rifle like the HK-416 with a 10.5" barrel is only 27" with the stock collapsed. A bullpup rifle like the Israeli Tavor or the Brit SA-80 are 29 and 30 inches long, respectively. IF I were expecting an extreme close quarter engagement and all I had was the HK, one technique would be tucking the stock under my arm to shorten the overall length of the weapon.
For examples of pistol use at extremely close ranges, see:
1. "Shot for Shot: "collateral" Alleyway Gunfight Breakdown" (
2. Close Quarters Shooting: Defensive Tactics (
All that said, parrying a ranged firearm at extremely close range (1 meter or less) makes sense from a rules standpoint. Having negative modifiers long-gun (anything bigger than a pistol) use at extremely close range also makes sense.
Last edited:
So I'll weigh in as someone who has not played any other version of Traveller outside of a small amount of hand-picked rules from a couple other systems that I liked for MgT2E.
I really like the combat system as it sits. There's a lot in this new material that I don't care for as it is written right now, but I see some things that might be good with some tweaking.
Initiative: Wholly opposed. Full stop. By placing initiative solely on the shoulders of one player, the entire scene can be disastrous if they get a bad role, and not just for them but for everyone. This also comes into an issue of why would anyone else bother to build up their tactics when Commando Bob already has a +3? The last issue is the "pick an action and commit." Which reminds me of the old Final Fantasy game on the original Nintendo. If you had two or more characters target the same enemy and it died after the first hit, the other moves were wasted, which quite often could lead to a total party kill. There's a reason this went away 40 years ago, let's not bring it back now for the sake of "realism" in a game that is anything but real. Sorry, but I'm pretty hard core set against this and will not use it for any reason. Punishing another player who "chose poorly" after the first player managed to get a lucky hit is just bad design.
Melee: The 2+ for someone not dodging or parrying is stupidly low, and if you combine it with issue #1, suddenly you have a scenario where players (or enemies) can run up on their initial attack and get a free hit. It's somehow worse than "flat-footed" in other systems as there's nothing here to establish them being flat-footed beyond, "Well, you don't get to go first so sucks to be you." Their only option is to take a DM penalty for their turn, simply because the player that rolled initiative botched it. Once again we're back to punishing players. It needs to stay at the normal 8+.
Pistols in melee has already been addressed by plenty of others, I can only echo their sentiments, especially as a person wo has extensive knowledge, practice, and real-world applications of firearm tactics.
Charge: I like the idea, the implementation needs work. The triple-move combined with the melee attack is too much. I would limit it to a double-move. Also, I don't think it should get a damage increase. First, if someone is running at you, they are broadcasting their action and while they might be likely to make contact with you, unless you are just blissfully unaware of this attack, you have enough reaction time to brace for any impact. In fact, a skilled grappler could and most likely would simply use their own momentum and toss or deflect them. That's also why I am on the fence about the +2 DM. It would make it more difficult to dodge when it should actually be easier. I want to play with this some though before completely dismissing it. On of the issues currently with melee is closing the gap.
Disarm needs to stay a grapple move. Sure it looks fancy in the movies, but a hand is a remarkably strong machine and a rather small target to hit with enough accuracy to disarm someone. As many want to point out, combat in Traveller isn't supposed to be like the flashy movies (but flashy is inherently more fun.) The other issue combines with the "flat-footed" reference I made above. Suddenly disarming someone is an almost guarantee unless they specifically dodge or parry. If they have no dodge or parry abilities, that's a recipe for disaster. I'm curious if this is also able to be combined with Charge?
I like the dual wielding. I'll have to play with it to see if it's still too easy to hit. Also, what about fists? Are those considered two weapons?
Multiple actions: I could see this becoming standard after some balancing passes.
Multiple Enemies: I think it highlights the issue with the new initiative change and melee attack difficulty especially if you combine it with multiple actions. Two enemies could get up on me (even if I have melee skills) and I am locked down with their opening salvo. First guy does a double attack. I can try to dodge both, but now I'm at a -2 DM on my turn, even if he misses. I don't get to make that decision after his attack roll. The second guy does the same, so now I'm at a -4 DM. Even if by this point I haven't been hit (unlikely.) To avoid that onslaught would come if I did not react, I had to completely cripple my ability to fight back in the next round. I can only attack 1, while starting at a -4 DM, and if I try to flee, they each get a free attack, starting the cycle all over again. Add in the new charge and even if I take a triple move, I can't get away. Just 2 enemies could keep me completely locked down unless initiative is lucky enough to change. I'm effectively useless to the group. That's not fun, it's frustrating.
On to the AP changes. I'm going to say the thing no-one else is saying right out of the gate: It's pretty shitty of you. The CSC just came out. It's not even a year old yet? Roughly? And it's not an inexpensive book. Your proposing a change that would radically alter a large amount of what's in it, and you'll give us an errata pdf? Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass that would be when your at the table and someone wants to buy a new piece of armor or weapon? Something so drastic is a next edition change, not a change that invalidates hundreds of entries in books that already cost a lot of money. You don't do that! Screw the merits if there are any, you're screwing your customers that paid good money for stable material. And don't even try to argue "just don't use them." If that's the case, then why implement them at all? And once alternate rules are out there, some players will get rather cranky if you try to tell them no. If you can't tell I'm a little sore about the idea of my shiny new book being a decoration as I'd have to print out many pages of errata to hand out.
With that out of the way, my issue is I feel like this will invalidate other ammo types and certain armors. For clarification, are the AP amounts in the document using AP ammo, or default values with AP ammo providing even more of a bonus? It reads as if they have built-in AP. The current system does a better job of representing how actual soft armor currently works. My level 3A ballistic vest will stop the slug of a 12 gauge 1 oz slug shot, but it's going to hurt like hell, bruise and probably break a rib. It might even do enough traumatic damage to kill me, even though the armor technically stopped the slug. Ballistic vests aren't the best choice against a stabby weapon. A knife will go through it. It will slow down the impact considerable and keep it from going as deep. It will also keep the blade from twisting and doing further damage. The current rules feel appropriate to that. According to the way the proposed changes read, that knife (or equivalent weapon and armor based on tech levels) would pierce through and do the full damage. As far as "simplifying" the math, this isn't really one of the areas where that's a difficult math check. The proposed dodge mechanics are more complicated than the current AP system.
That's my rant. I'll give a better opinion once I have time to try the systems.
EDIT: I just saw the follow-up post from Matt where he says these changes would be years down the line and incorporated into the next edition ruleset if implemented. I apologize it I was a bit critical. It's good to know you recognize the issue.
I really like the combat system as it sits. There's a lot in this new material that I don't care for as it is written right now, but I see some things that might be good with some tweaking.
Initiative: Wholly opposed. Full stop. By placing initiative solely on the shoulders of one player, the entire scene can be disastrous if they get a bad role, and not just for them but for everyone. This also comes into an issue of why would anyone else bother to build up their tactics when Commando Bob already has a +3? The last issue is the "pick an action and commit." Which reminds me of the old Final Fantasy game on the original Nintendo. If you had two or more characters target the same enemy and it died after the first hit, the other moves were wasted, which quite often could lead to a total party kill. There's a reason this went away 40 years ago, let's not bring it back now for the sake of "realism" in a game that is anything but real. Sorry, but I'm pretty hard core set against this and will not use it for any reason. Punishing another player who "chose poorly" after the first player managed to get a lucky hit is just bad design.
Melee: The 2+ for someone not dodging or parrying is stupidly low, and if you combine it with issue #1, suddenly you have a scenario where players (or enemies) can run up on their initial attack and get a free hit. It's somehow worse than "flat-footed" in other systems as there's nothing here to establish them being flat-footed beyond, "Well, you don't get to go first so sucks to be you." Their only option is to take a DM penalty for their turn, simply because the player that rolled initiative botched it. Once again we're back to punishing players. It needs to stay at the normal 8+.
Pistols in melee has already been addressed by plenty of others, I can only echo their sentiments, especially as a person wo has extensive knowledge, practice, and real-world applications of firearm tactics.
Charge: I like the idea, the implementation needs work. The triple-move combined with the melee attack is too much. I would limit it to a double-move. Also, I don't think it should get a damage increase. First, if someone is running at you, they are broadcasting their action and while they might be likely to make contact with you, unless you are just blissfully unaware of this attack, you have enough reaction time to brace for any impact. In fact, a skilled grappler could and most likely would simply use their own momentum and toss or deflect them. That's also why I am on the fence about the +2 DM. It would make it more difficult to dodge when it should actually be easier. I want to play with this some though before completely dismissing it. On of the issues currently with melee is closing the gap.
Disarm needs to stay a grapple move. Sure it looks fancy in the movies, but a hand is a remarkably strong machine and a rather small target to hit with enough accuracy to disarm someone. As many want to point out, combat in Traveller isn't supposed to be like the flashy movies (but flashy is inherently more fun.) The other issue combines with the "flat-footed" reference I made above. Suddenly disarming someone is an almost guarantee unless they specifically dodge or parry. If they have no dodge or parry abilities, that's a recipe for disaster. I'm curious if this is also able to be combined with Charge?
I like the dual wielding. I'll have to play with it to see if it's still too easy to hit. Also, what about fists? Are those considered two weapons?
Multiple actions: I could see this becoming standard after some balancing passes.
Multiple Enemies: I think it highlights the issue with the new initiative change and melee attack difficulty especially if you combine it with multiple actions. Two enemies could get up on me (even if I have melee skills) and I am locked down with their opening salvo. First guy does a double attack. I can try to dodge both, but now I'm at a -2 DM on my turn, even if he misses. I don't get to make that decision after his attack roll. The second guy does the same, so now I'm at a -4 DM. Even if by this point I haven't been hit (unlikely.) To avoid that onslaught would come if I did not react, I had to completely cripple my ability to fight back in the next round. I can only attack 1, while starting at a -4 DM, and if I try to flee, they each get a free attack, starting the cycle all over again. Add in the new charge and even if I take a triple move, I can't get away. Just 2 enemies could keep me completely locked down unless initiative is lucky enough to change. I'm effectively useless to the group. That's not fun, it's frustrating.
On to the AP changes. I'm going to say the thing no-one else is saying right out of the gate: It's pretty shitty of you. The CSC just came out. It's not even a year old yet? Roughly? And it's not an inexpensive book. Your proposing a change that would radically alter a large amount of what's in it, and you'll give us an errata pdf? Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass that would be when your at the table and someone wants to buy a new piece of armor or weapon? Something so drastic is a next edition change, not a change that invalidates hundreds of entries in books that already cost a lot of money. You don't do that! Screw the merits if there are any, you're screwing your customers that paid good money for stable material. And don't even try to argue "just don't use them." If that's the case, then why implement them at all? And once alternate rules are out there, some players will get rather cranky if you try to tell them no. If you can't tell I'm a little sore about the idea of my shiny new book being a decoration as I'd have to print out many pages of errata to hand out.
With that out of the way, my issue is I feel like this will invalidate other ammo types and certain armors. For clarification, are the AP amounts in the document using AP ammo, or default values with AP ammo providing even more of a bonus? It reads as if they have built-in AP. The current system does a better job of representing how actual soft armor currently works. My level 3A ballistic vest will stop the slug of a 12 gauge 1 oz slug shot, but it's going to hurt like hell, bruise and probably break a rib. It might even do enough traumatic damage to kill me, even though the armor technically stopped the slug. Ballistic vests aren't the best choice against a stabby weapon. A knife will go through it. It will slow down the impact considerable and keep it from going as deep. It will also keep the blade from twisting and doing further damage. The current rules feel appropriate to that. According to the way the proposed changes read, that knife (or equivalent weapon and armor based on tech levels) would pierce through and do the full damage. As far as "simplifying" the math, this isn't really one of the areas where that's a difficult math check. The proposed dodge mechanics are more complicated than the current AP system.
That's my rant. I'll give a better opinion once I have time to try the systems.
EDIT: I just saw the follow-up post from Matt where he says these changes would be years down the line and incorporated into the next edition ruleset if implemented. I apologize it I was a bit critical. It's good to know you recognize the issue.
Last edited:
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
If I can't grapple the bad guy to control his gun, turn his arm to shoot several opponents, and then turn the gun on himself then I am hardly The Equalizer.
Funny how cartoon physics cinematic dogfighting in space is ok but the standard tropes of action move hand to hand combat are not.
Ok I am almost being tongue in cheek here..
Funny how cartoon physics cinematic dogfighting in space is ok but the standard tropes of action move hand to hand combat are not.
Ok I am almost being tongue in cheek here..
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread.
First reaction: Opposed rolls are SLOW...
I like the idea of using my skill as defensive DM, but not in an opposed roll.
Make it a difficulty to hit (AC) of 8 + skill + DexDM + wpn mod.
Doesn't change the odds much, just faster.
Fast: I roll 10 to attack and 5 damage, but you have Def 11 so I miss.
Slow:
I roll 10 to attack...
wait...
wait...
Oh, I roll 11 def, what did you roll again?
wait...
10, I think, so I guess I missed.
I regularly play with people who literally take minutes to do any roll. Opposed rolls are reserved for special occasions.
First reaction: Opposed rolls are SLOW...
I like the idea of using my skill as defensive DM, but not in an opposed roll.
Make it a difficulty to hit (AC) of 8 + skill + DexDM + wpn mod.
Doesn't change the odds much, just faster.
Fast: I roll 10 to attack and 5 damage, but you have Def 11 so I miss.
Slow:
I roll 10 to attack...
wait...
wait...
Oh, I roll 11 def, what did you roll again?
wait...
10, I think, so I guess I missed.
I regularly play with people who literally take minutes to do any roll. Opposed rolls are reserved for special occasions.
Initial reactions after a short playtest with firefights against pirates.
The good:
1. laser weapons are really scary. This provides a partial explanation of why they are banned at low law levels.
2. Automatically adding Tactics to Initiative "feels right"
3. You can't dodge "blast"
The bad:
1. my players really didn't like the "floating target number to hit". It seems too easy to actually hit the target (and this was them firing first...).
2. Alas, all-or-nothing armour is not popular. I liked it as a Referee, but that may be because it seems plausible. One suggestion was to try something like "the armour has 3 ratings: defence against Lasers, defence against sharp/pointy things, and defence against everything else". We already have armour with two ratings (Lasers and everything else) so it might not be too difficult to add a third.
3. Dodging bullets has always seemed implausible. Dodging or parrying lasers seems a bit too like Star Wars.
The good:
1. laser weapons are really scary. This provides a partial explanation of why they are banned at low law levels.
2. Automatically adding Tactics to Initiative "feels right"
3. You can't dodge "blast"
The bad:
1. my players really didn't like the "floating target number to hit". It seems too easy to actually hit the target (and this was them firing first...).
2. Alas, all-or-nothing armour is not popular. I liked it as a Referee, but that may be because it seems plausible. One suggestion was to try something like "the armour has 3 ratings: defence against Lasers, defence against sharp/pointy things, and defence against everything else". We already have armour with two ratings (Lasers and everything else) so it might not be too difficult to add a third.
3. Dodging bullets has always seemed implausible. Dodging or parrying lasers seems a bit too like Star Wars.
Last edited:
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
I’ve done some more thinking…
I’m still vehemently opposed to the suggested AP changes. In a fresh edition, intending to start over on a blank slate, either version works, but if these rules are to be used within 2nd edition then no thanks.
Too many books with too many entries will be affected, and even a free pdf including all of them would’t suffice IMHO. I’ve bought the CSC twice, the latest was a quite pricy deluxe edition. I’m not particularly interested in having it invalidated.
Plus it would mean all future equipment would be made according to the new system, leading to additional book-keeping when some gear is old and some is new…
The suggested initiative changes are interesting. Having the party leader use their skills to set up the fight scenario and then act it out accordingly has its charm. It can be discussed exactly which skills and such should be used, but the idea has merit.
A potential danger is the risk of Total Party Kill, having every player wiped out before able to act due to going second.
I sort of get the feel that both the AP and initiative changes are in order to make the game more board game/warhammer like. I’m not convinced an RPG is best served by going that route, the increased granularity of the current system might be better, with the suggested changes better used for mass combat.
Although… Even in mass combat battles I could see an advantage with having as much as possible work like in individual combat, for ease of transition and less book-keeping. IIRC the Mercenary 2nd edition for 1st edition Traveller was heavily based on personal combat, just scaled up to units rather than individuals? A system that uses the same basic rules and stats as the existing personal combat and gear system means easier transition and less converting.
At first, I was somewhat appalled by the apparent lack of guns in close combat, but I’ve decided to accept it - on one condition. Add a new sub-skill, Gun Combat(melee) or Melee(Guns) to handle well, guns in melee. Add a bane for using carbines and SMGs, and DM-2 for rifles, or something. Perhaps DM-2 for SMG, DM-4 for rifles? I want gun-kata and pistols in melee duels to be a thing!
I love the idea of a charge attack! Perfect for medieval settings (or low tech planets), angry Aslan or charging K’Kree! Exact details can be tweaked at need, but the idea is great!
Same thing goes for flurry of blows! Another great addition/suggestion! I would like/demand to see two attacks having the same DM modification as using two weapons (i.e DM-2) rather than the harsher current suggestion. If triple attacks at DM-4 feels too good, then make them -2/-6?
A thought/suggestion: How about adding a similar rule to shooting? It might need range limitations, or every range band counts as one (two?) higher, or something, but rapid firing a weapon should be doable, at the cost of accuracy, IMHO.
I’m still vehemently opposed to the suggested AP changes. In a fresh edition, intending to start over on a blank slate, either version works, but if these rules are to be used within 2nd edition then no thanks.
Too many books with too many entries will be affected, and even a free pdf including all of them would’t suffice IMHO. I’ve bought the CSC twice, the latest was a quite pricy deluxe edition. I’m not particularly interested in having it invalidated.
Plus it would mean all future equipment would be made according to the new system, leading to additional book-keeping when some gear is old and some is new…
The suggested initiative changes are interesting. Having the party leader use their skills to set up the fight scenario and then act it out accordingly has its charm. It can be discussed exactly which skills and such should be used, but the idea has merit.
A potential danger is the risk of Total Party Kill, having every player wiped out before able to act due to going second.
I sort of get the feel that both the AP and initiative changes are in order to make the game more board game/warhammer like. I’m not convinced an RPG is best served by going that route, the increased granularity of the current system might be better, with the suggested changes better used for mass combat.
Although… Even in mass combat battles I could see an advantage with having as much as possible work like in individual combat, for ease of transition and less book-keeping. IIRC the Mercenary 2nd edition for 1st edition Traveller was heavily based on personal combat, just scaled up to units rather than individuals? A system that uses the same basic rules and stats as the existing personal combat and gear system means easier transition and less converting.
At first, I was somewhat appalled by the apparent lack of guns in close combat, but I’ve decided to accept it - on one condition. Add a new sub-skill, Gun Combat(melee) or Melee(Guns) to handle well, guns in melee. Add a bane for using carbines and SMGs, and DM-2 for rifles, or something. Perhaps DM-2 for SMG, DM-4 for rifles? I want gun-kata and pistols in melee duels to be a thing!
I love the idea of a charge attack! Perfect for medieval settings (or low tech planets), angry Aslan or charging K’Kree! Exact details can be tweaked at need, but the idea is great!
Same thing goes for flurry of blows! Another great addition/suggestion! I would like/demand to see two attacks having the same DM modification as using two weapons (i.e DM-2) rather than the harsher current suggestion. If triple attacks at DM-4 feels too good, then make them -2/-6?
A thought/suggestion: How about adding a similar rule to shooting? It might need range limitations, or every range band counts as one (two?) higher, or something, but rapid firing a weapon should be doable, at the cost of accuracy, IMHO.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Yeah, it was a game called SnapShot back in the Classic Traveller days. I just 'assume' my modified version of it still 'exists': Minor Action, DM-2, no aiming, another DM-2 for every target except the first (well, technically the first target is the first DM-2). It's still only one shot every two seconds.
Hmm, maybe there should be a 'Double-tap' rule too. Or a
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
Interesting!
would you under that system say up to three attacks (due to three minor actions) at DM-2 to hit each, or will the base difficulty increase with the number of shots? Sure, shooting once each at two or three different targets makes things harder, but if I double-tap against the same target?
It do feel that, if I can hold one gun in each hand and shoot them both, I should be able to shoot twice with one weapon too. Easier in a way, since I won’t need to change focus from one weapon to another.
In other words, and since I’ve thought about something similar myself, there’s a high probability of me ‘officially’ adopting your idea above
would you under that system say up to three attacks (due to three minor actions) at DM-2 to hit each, or will the base difficulty increase with the number of shots? Sure, shooting once each at two or three different targets makes things harder, but if I double-tap against the same target?
It do feel that, if I can hold one gun in each hand and shoot them both, I should be able to shoot twice with one weapon too. Easier in a way, since I won’t need to change focus from one weapon to another.
In other words, and since I’ve thought about something similar myself, there’s a high probability of me ‘officially’ adopting your idea above
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Well, hypothetically and making it up on the fly, if you missed the first shot of a doubletap, the effect of that miss should apply in addition to the base DM-2 for the second shot (or at least a DM-4, since it counts as 'another target' - the actual target, not the wall you just hit.
Yeah, that's the part that makes the DM-2 seem reasonable (plus that's a general 'do more than one thing DM)
The one tricky part is that third tap, which is a head shot. that ought to really get at least another DM-2 AND require at least the second tap to be a hit, but like that obscure sniping rule in a Mercenary book, +D6 instead of +1 for each positive Effect. Overly complicated, but sort of fun for a gunslinger sort of campaign. Like... Bounty Hunting?? ("Hey Earl, that contract was for alive only!" "Uh, sorry Bert. I'll aim lower next time."
Okay, been mulling all your comments over and engaging in some deep Game Design Meditation. This is where we are currently at in our thinking:
- The 'floating' target number based on the target Dodging or Parrying is a nice idea that gets the 'cut and thrust' we were looking for into the game... but it is unwieldy when it happens every time. To this end, we are thinking that you get a straight 8+ to make a successful attack roll (as per current rules) and, also similar to the current rules, the target can choose to make a Reaction (and make as many Reactions as they like in a round - one per attack - at a cumulative DM-1 for each that will apply to every check they make in their next round).
- However, these Dodges and Parries are made as Battlefield Dev suggests, making an opposed check against the attack roll.
- This should retain the 'cut and thrust' we are looking for, but it is no longer applied to every attack thus speeding things up (and allowing 'tanks' in heavy armour to just bulldoze through things while nimble weaklings desperately try to just survive a battle).
- Attack rolls only have DEX added to them, not STR. This was a holdover from playing old school D&D (!), and it makes more sense for DEX to apply to attack rolls, and then have STR applied to damage or AP.
- The 'all or nothing' AP is something we like a lot, but we will not bring it into Traveller until and unless there is a completely new edition (which we are not even thinking about at the moment). However, at this stage, it is likely to pop up in a 'variant' form of Traveller we are working on, so comments on this still welcomed.
- Pistols should, of course, be useable in melee combat.
- Glancing blows should double Protection not halve damage. Very good point by the the gentleman who suggested that.
- For Initiative, we are now thinking that characters should use DEX or INT as a flat score to determine initiative order. Athletics (dexterity) gets added to either).
ColinD
Cosmic Mongoose
By setting DEX and INT as a flat score in initiative and making Dodges and Parries into opposed checks I think it will make melee combat resolve more like Call of Cthulhu. I like it and I think my players will like it too. As for the others I will try these with my players like I did with the first New Combat Rules and see what they say!
Looking forward to the new variant!
Looking forward to the new variant!
Going back to an 8+ but keeping the dodge and parry mechanics looks good. I'm not opposed to some sort of mechanic that introduces a "flat-footed" bonus to hit similar to other games, and completely see where the intent was with the "cut and thrust." It just missed the mark on how it worked. I think there is definitely room for some sort of rule on catching an opponent off-guard and look forward to seeing this develop further.
