[Traveller Battlefield Dev] New Combat Rules to Try!

[Sonereal]

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.

If the target doesn't oppose, the attacker just needs to roll 2+.

A target facing multiple attacks in a single combat round suffers DM-1 for every Dodge or Parry they have already attempted in the same combat round [pg. 6, Multiple Enemies].

Nothing about reactions in here. Clarification needed?

 

[adzling]

Ok reading through this it seems to result in LESS realistic outcomes.

For example a broadsword with it's ap trait of 6 cannot possibly damage someone wearing cloth or a flak jacket when in reality the blunt force trauma could beat them unconscious/ break their bones, which completely ignores the possibility of hitting them in the face or arms or legs (melee combatants get hit in the head and arms far more than the chest).

This needs to be addressed.

One way would to do that would be to stipulate that soft armor halves (or quarters?) incoming damage that does not penetrate (AP is lower than armor).
This would also apply to slug-throwers when used against soft armor.

I would also add in the ability to double the AP of a weapon that has a point (such as the point of your sword) but cut the damage in half.

A pointed thrusting weapon like a spear should have a high base AP to start with.

moving on

A Gauss rifle is the apogee of slug throwers and should be able to threaten battle dress with the right ammo and a skilled user. Here it cannot damage anyone wearing Combat Armor or a Hostile Environment Vac-Suit, two armor types it should definitely shred.

Heck look at the assault rifle, it has no chance of penetrating cloth or a flak vest when in reality both of those armors can be defeated by an assault rifle and if not would still result in significant blunt force trauma. And of course you could always shoot someone in the face or other unarmored part.

Compared to the default rules where all of those scenarios would have resulted in damage to the armor wearer this seems like a step back, adding nothing to the game.

I see your option rules for increasing AP by using successes, perhaps this can counterbalance the negative effects of this change.

I have to stop and ask "why?"

What does this new system add/ improve upon the default one?

I think your core issue here is that personal armor is NOT an all or nothing affair. It is most often soft to facilitate movement and comfort whereas vehicle armor (where this approach makes more sense) is not.

The softness means that weapons with mass will still do damage even if they do not penetrate.

Moreover you have to also factor into armor not covering all parts of the target, which the previous system did just fine by abstracting it to providing some damage reduction at almost all times.

It does seems like you are trying to apply the logic for vehicle armor and penetration to personal armor which is not at all realistic or accurate.

IMHO there are other issues however; weapons seem to have too little penetration compared to the armor and lasers have far too much AP compared to slug throwers.

IMHO here's how I would modify your current rules changes:
1). lasers should be reworked to be able to be set as either beam or pulse.
When in Beam they provide +2 to hit
When in pulse they can be auto-fired with no recoil penalty.
AP should always be one point per damage die.

2). Slug-throwers should be reworked to offer AP ammo and introduce recoil effects
AP rounds half the target's armor value and reduce penetrating damage by 1 per die
Auto-fire incurs a progressive recoil penalty of -1 for each attack after the first (0 on first attack, -1 on second, -2 on third, etc).

This gives both weapon types a good reason to exist and an area to shine in.
Lasers would excel at unarmored/ lesser armored combatants and in zero-g environments. They have a more accurate mode (BEAM) that reflects the superior "ballistic" characteristics of a laser compared to a slug-thrower and a rapid-fire mode (PULSE) that also leverages the benefits of a laser.

Slug throwers would be better against highly armored opponents when using AP rounds and available to lower tech levels when not using AP rounds.

 

[Arkathan]

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.

Which is why I wanted a clarification on whether it was replaced or not.
And I would call it a debuff for the person dodging or parrying.
The "unwilling to parry" makes sense in the context of the -1DM on next actions, but making it part of the mechanic brought it into question.

Sword of Cepheus saves on the rolling by using target melee skill as a -DM to hit. Dodge and parry are integral to the roll and not a reaction. Just want to verify designer intent here.

 

[Vormaerin]

I don't understand your examples, Adzling. It sounds like you are misreading the rules. It does not say that if the armor exceeds the AP, you are immune to the weapon. It means you don't count the AP value.

A broadsword in the current rules does 4d6 dmg. vs Armor 8 cloth, it would do 4d6-8. Which is exactly what it would do in the new system because the 8 armor exceeds the 6AP? What it actually means is that broadswords are *better* than currently because that 3pt armor vest does nothing, whereas before it would reduce the dmg by 3.

Gauss rifles still do 4d6. Currently against TL 12 Combat armor, they would do 4d6 -13 (17 armor - 4 AP). In the current rules, they just lose that 4pts of penetration. A downgrade, but not a disaster.

 

[Sonereal]

Ok reading through this it seems to result in LESS realistic outcomes.

For example a broadsword with it's ap trait of 6 cannot possibly damage someone wearing cloth or a flak jacket when in reality the blunt force trauma could beat them unconscious/ break their bones, which completely ignores the possibility of hitting them in the face or arms or legs (melee combatants get hit in the head and arms far more than the chest).

A broadsword deals a disgusting 4D damage. Against somebody in a TL8 flak jacket it is dealing 8+Effect damage.

moving on

A Gauss rifle is the apogee of slug throwers and should be able to threaten battle dress with the right ammo and a skilled user. Here it cannot damage anyone wearing Combat Armor or a Hostile Environment Vac-Suit, two armor types it should definitely shred.

RAW a Gauss Rifle deals ~14 damage+Effect. Against TL12 Combat Armour, it is only dealing 2 damage after AP.

Here, it is getting no-sold on the TL12 Combat Armour but still penetrates TL13 HEVs so I agree with you here.

Heck look at the assault rifle, it has no chance of penetrating cloth or a flak vest when in reality both of those armors can be defeated by an assault rifle and if not would still result in significant blunt force trauma. And of course you could always shoot someone in the face or other unarmored part.

Assault Rifle against TL10 Cloth Armor is dealing 2 Penetrating damage on average here vs the 2 Penetrating damage it does on average already.

What does this new system add/ improve upon the default one?

I think your core issue here is that personal armor is NOT an all or nothing affair. It is most often soft to facilitate movement and comfort whereas vehicle armor (where this approach makes more sense) is not.

The softness means that weapons with mass will still do damage even if they do not penetrate.

Moreover you have to also factor into armor not covering all parts of the target, which the previous system did just fine by abstracting it to providing some damage reduction at almost all times.

It does seems like you are trying to apply the logic for vehicle armor and penetration to personal armor which is not at all realistic or accurate.

This is why Wild Talents breaks armor down into Light Armor and Heavy Armor. Hard Armor is rigid. Light Armor...well, isn't. That level of granularity would be nice because stuff like Combat Armour and Battle Dress would probably fall under HAR.

2). Slug-throwers should be reworked to offer AP ammo and introduce recoil effects
AP rounds half the target's armor value and reduce penetrating damage by 1 per die

This is how Armor Piercing works in GURPS for the record. In GURPS, gauss rifles have Armor Divisor 3, meaning they divide Armor Ratings by 3. Putting AP in your assault rifle gives them Armor Divisor 2, which halves armor. Hardened Armors ignore an equal level of Divisor.

But that would be a rework and a half.

Edit: Divisors/Hardening would also let the developers do the banding they want to do without having to slap AP on half the weapons in the game.

 

[adzling]

A broadsword deals a disgusting 4D damage. Against somebody in a TL8 flak jacket it is dealing 8+Effect damage.

with an AP of 6 it will never penetrate though... and so do no damage...

RAW a Gauss Rifle deals ~14 damage+Effect. Against TL12 Combat Armour, it is only dealing 2 damage after AP.

it's dealing no damage as it cannot penetrate

Here, it is getting no-sold on the TL12 Combat Armour but still penetrates TL13 HEVs so I agree with you here.

Assault Rifle against TL10 Cloth Armor is dealing 2 Penetrating damage on average here vs the 2 Penetrating damage it does on average already.

again, its AP is not higher than the armor so it is not penetrating so no damage is being dealt

This is why Wild Talents breaks armor down into Light Armor and Heavy Armor. Hard Armor is rigid. Light Armor...well, isn't. That level of granularity would be nice because stuff like Combat Armour and Battle Dress would probably fall under HAR.

agreed

This is how Armor Piercing works in GURPS for the record. In GURPS, gauss rifles have Armor Divisor 3, meaning they divide Armor Ratings by 3. Putting AP in your assault rifle gives them Armor Divisor 2, which halves armor. Hardened Armors ignore an equal level of Divisor.

But that would be a rework and a half.

Edit: Divisors/Hardening would also let the developers do the banding they want to do without having to slap AP on half the weapons in the game.

 

[Sonereal]

with an AP of 6 it will never penetrate though... and so do no damage...

it's dealing no damage as it cannot penetrate

I think you are misreading the rules. Then again, maybe I am?

AP X: This weapon has the ability to punch through
armour by the use of specially shaped ammunition or
high technology. It will completely ignore the Protection
score of any armour equal to or less than the AP
trait. Armour that has a higher Protection score will
completely ignore the AP trait and be immune to it.

Armor with a higher Protection ignores the AP trait and is immune to the AP trait, not to the damage.

 

[Heretic]

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?

The rule on dual weapons say that you can use (for example) a blade and a pistol. So, presumably, you can use a pistol in melee.

My suggestion would be that if a pistol-user is in melee, they don't get to use their "ranged combat" skill (because they're not using the sights).
BUT they can still roll 2D6 and add their dex bonus when firing the pistol. Also, the target could dodge or parry (knocking the pistol away) and not receive the minus 2 penalty for ranged weapons.

 

[Heretic]

I think you are misreading the rules. Then again, maybe I am?


Armor with a higher Protection ignores the AP trait and is immune to the AP trait, not to the damage.

That is also my interpretation. I use the example of the frag grenade (AP4) vs the flak jacket (Protection 5). The flak jacket does not render the wearer immune to frag grenades. BUT it does give 5 points of protection. This level of protection is NOT reduced by the AP4.

Now, if the target was wearing a leather jacket (Protection 1) then AP4 is bigger than 1 and - alas- not even the coolest leather jacket would give any protection against the frag grenade.

 

[Vormaerin]

The current rule is that AP reduces the armor value by its rating. The new rule is that AP either negates armor or does nothing. It does not affect the base damage value of the weapon in any way.

Current Broadsword: 4d6, AP0 vs AV8 is 4d6-8.
New Broadsword: 4d6, AP6 vs AV8 is 4d6-8.

Broadswords are better, because any armor up to AV 6 is now worthless against them, unlike currently.

 

[adzling]

I don't understand your examples, Adzling. It sounds like you are misreading the rules. It does not say that if the armor exceeds the AP, you are immune to the weapon. It means you don't count the AP value.

ah ok i think you are correct, the wording is very confusing on page 8.
I was reading "Armour that has a higher Protection score will completely ignore the AP trait and be immune to it." as being immune to the damage.
I think you may be correct in that when it say it is "immune to the AP trait" it means it ignores the AP effect of the weapon.

A broadsword in the current rules does 4d6 dmg. vs Armor 8 cloth, it would do 4d6-8. Which is exactly what it would do in the new system because the 8 armor exceeds the 6AP? What it actually means is that broadswords are *better* than currently because that 3pt armor vest does nothing, whereas before it would reduce the dmg by 3.

yes on re-reading I think you are correct

Gauss rifles still do 4d6. Currently against TL 12 Combat armor, they would do 4d6 -13 (17 armor - 4 AP). In the current rules, they just lose that 4pts of penetration. A downgrade, but not a disaster.

This does need some tweaking.
Also how to handle AP ammo?

 

[adzling]

I think you are misreading the rules. Then again, maybe I am?

It is worded a bit confusingly but I think you and Vormaerin are correct

 

[Kayleb]

I've always been surprised that the Boon or Bane mechanic never made it into the Mongoose combat rules.

For two weapon fighting for example, both attacks could be made with a bane rather than the -2 DM.

With DMs the task can potentially become impossible, or impossible to fail at. The benefit of using Boons or Banes is that they modify the probability without making a task impossible.

So imagine our hero is trying to attack a baddie that's in total darkness. Could fire one pistol into the dark, but instead they choose to dual wield and fill the room with lead to increase the probability of a hit. Our hero has Gun Combat -0.
With -DMs due to darkness and dual wielding penalties, scoring a hit may be impossible. (-6 DM)
With Bane die, (or maybe multiple banes if you remove the restriction) a hit may be highly improbable, but never impossible.

And I think that's how you want things. Skills and maybe ability modifiers should provide DMs, but situational things like darkness or range are better represented by modifying the bell curve of the die.

Bringing in more Boons or Banes would mean less math during combat too. If I know my character has Gun Combat-2 and a +1 from his DEX score, I know I'm always adding +3 DM to my attack rolls. No need to consult tables, check character sheet or do more math. Choosing the highest or lowest pair of dice is easier that varying the math formula that needs to be solved to hit.

 

[Kayleb]

Regarding the optional rule of declaration of actions in a combat round and having to stick to what you declared, this would make more sense if the combat rounds were 1 or 2 seconds long but in a six second combat round I think Players will be happier if there is a little flexibility. Getting all the declarations, and then rolling up the tasks could also add to the time it takes to get through a fight. Pace is important and a more streamlined game is always better.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I didn’t catch this change- can’t you still fire a pistol with a successful grapple roll?

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.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I've always been surprised that the Boon or Bane mechanic never made it into the Mongoose combat rules.

For two weapon fighting for example, both attacks could be made with a bane rather than the -2 DM.

With DMs the task can potentially become impossible, or impossible to fail at. The benefit of using Boons or Banes is that they modify the probability without making a task impossible.

So imagine our hero is trying to attack a baddie that's in total darkness. Could fire one pistol into the dark, but instead they choose to dual wield and fill the room with lead to increase the probability of a hit. Our hero has Gun Combat -0.
With -DMs due to darkness and dual wielding penalties, scoring a hit may be impossible. (-6 DM)
With Bane die, (or maybe multiple banes if you remove the restriction) a hit may be highly improbable, but never impossible.

And I think that's how you want things. Skills and maybe ability modifiers should provide DMs, but situational things like darkness or range are better represented by modifying the bell curve of the die.

Bringing in more Boons or Banes would mean less math during combat too. If I know my character has Gun Combat-2 and a +1 from his DEX score, I know I'm always adding +3 DM to my attack rolls. No need to consult tables, check character sheet or do more math. Choosing the highest or lowest pair of dice is easier that varying the math formula that needs to be solved to hit.

My martial arts rules basically add banes or boons to certain actions in combat

 

[Dracous]

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.

CSC description for Ablat specifically states "Ablat also has a minimal value against other forms of attack but it cannot be combined with any other types of armour."

 

[Dracous]

Just looking at the change to dodge/parry. I like the changes for melee reactions. My players always pick up the dice when I ask them if they want to dodge or parry, and are vaguely disappointed when they are only applying a modifier. This adds more utility and fun.
However, I would still leave the default attack at 8+.
I would also consider that a dodge should be based on the Athletics(dex) skill and not dex alone. I'd use athletics with dex as a mod. Unskilled still gets the -3 penalty.

I think making it an opposed role in ranged combat will work as well, but only when the choice to dodge is made. I'd also still use 8+ as the default to hit as well.

I wonder if the "Dive for cover" reaction needs rework. It still works as written but seems to cost more compared to a regular dodge. I'll have a think about that.

 

[Vormaerin]

CSC description for Ablat specifically states "Ablat also has a minimal value against other forms of attack but it cannot be combined with any other types of armour."

Yeah, that means that Ablat's armor rating vs non energy weapons doesn't stack with the values of other armor. It still stacks the energy resistance, as per the standard rule for the category. The first few sentences talk about how it works against energy weapon attacks, then it says "It also has..." This keeps it in line with how Reflec works. Boosts the energy defense of other armor, but not the physical defense. Ablat has some residual physical protection, unlike Reflec, but not enough to alter the values of any better physical armor worn.

 

[Geir]

CSC description for Ablat specifically states "Ablat also has a minimal value against other forms of attack but it cannot be combined with any other types of armour."

Yes, because it's bulky. But given the AP of lasers has been changed from zero to lots, it becomes completely useless. I'm thinking both Reflect and Ablat not be left the same but be doubled? Reflect at +20 seems high, but it would only stop 5 hits of a 5D+3 sniper laser rifle shot, but stops 12 hits of a 3D TL9 laser pistol, which is sort of the back and forth TL advantage effect being discussed.
(Another thing I didn't notice earlier... grumble)