[Traveller Battlefield Dev] New Combat Rules to Try!

[CthulhuStig]

Thanks for releasing this and asking for community feedback, it's always great to see. A lot of this restates what others have said, but my thoughts are.

The new initiative rules are interesting, and I can imagine it be cool in some scenarios, although I'm not sure if it's something I'd want to be forced to play with all the time. My main concern is, with how deadly Traveller can be, I suspect it significantly increases the chance of suffering a TPK if you don't get first initiative.
I wonder if it would make sense to have it as something the players (or possibly their opponents) can choose to do when the situation is right? The fight is going badly so at the start of the next combat round the players choose to attack as a group, the gamble being, if they roll well and get first initiative they can swarm the enemy and get in multiple attacks and possibly take their opponent(s) out before they can get any more attacks in but if they roll badly then their opponents will get the change to do the same to them. I could see a couple of ways how to select the person who makes the role without it becoming to unbalanced, either the referee decides, but the chosen person gets to choose from any of their characteristics to use for the roll (as long as they can come up with a suitably convincing/hilarious reason why it's appropriate for the situation) _or_ the players decide who, but the referee decides what characteristic is used (they could just go with DEX/INT, or they could go with something more creative if feeling so inclined).

The melee rules could do with extra clarification around combat with multiple enemies. If a player is in combat with multiple opponents, and they attack one of them, does that count as breaking the close combat lock with the other enemies, resulting in them getting a free attack?

Not being able to use pistols in close combat seems a pretty major flaw. It means no John Wick style close combat gun play. From a math point of view, short range for most slugger pistols seems to be in the 2-2.5 meter range, the change effectively means a short range pistol shot isn't something that will ever occur in game.

Would it make sense for the rules for disarming to take the skill the person being disarmed has with their weapon into account? It probably depends on exactly how the disarming is occurring, but it feels like in the majority of cases it should be harder to disarm someone who has 3 levels of specialisation in their weapon than someone who is completely untrained with it.

The rules change where the Effect of a melee and ranged attacks is determined by the difference between the attacker's attack roll and the defender's dodge/parry roll could do with some clarification around what the Effect of the attack is if the defender can't/doesn't attempt to dodge/parry. Is the intention that in those situations the defender's dodge/parry roll is effectively 0, meaning the Effect of the attack is the result of the attacker's 2D + Melee/Ranged (appropriate speciality) + STR/DEX roll?

I'm probably missing something obvious but, with the new rules, does "Weapons with the Blast trait cannot be Dodged or Parried" not mean that the only way for someone to fail an attack with one of these weapons is to roll snake eyes and automatically fumble? As far as I can tell, other than a fumble, it looks like their opponent dodging/parrying an attack are the only ways for an attacker to miss a ranged attack. As far as I can see, this would also be the case if the person firing was untrained. The damage might be reduced a little due to a low Effect of the attack, but it's not exactly clear what the Effect of an attack is if the defender can't parry or dodge.

I can see the hard pass/fail AP rules maybe being nice for some groups that are specifically wanting more streamlined/predictable combat, however, I'm not a fan myself. The optional rule about being able to use the Effect of the attack to increase AP seems pretty mandatory to prevent armour becoming massively OP and it being effectively impossible to take on opponents with more advanced tech. However, my main concern is in practice, the fact the new rules require different AP/protection values, will just be annoying as it limits/complicates using any sources books, supplements and resources from previous editions.

If it was up to me, I'd most leave the core rules as they are and include the new stuff as an alternative. For the initiative rules a group could solely use the core rules, just use the new rules or use a mix as I described above. The new melee/ranged combat rules could be tweaked based on some of the feedback people have given and used as a alternate streamlined combat system for groups looking for that. Charging, Disarming and Multiple Attacks could probably just be tweaked a little and added straight into the core rules. The main thing I'd change is the proposed AP rules. I'd either rework the proposed change, so the rules are compatible with existing weapon/armour stats, or not change them at all.

 

[Dracous]

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.

Sorry, I don't read it that way. if you combine the rule "Importantly, unless otherwise stated, all armour in this section can be worn over the top of standard or archaic armour. However, only one type of anti-energy armour can be worn in this way."
With:
"Ablat also has a minimal value against other forms of attack but it cannot be combined with any other types of armour."
It really seems to fall into the 'unless otherwise stated' category.
If it does stack they really need to remove the 'cannot be combined' statement, or clarify the wording. I never saw the ambiguity before, but I can kind of see what you are saying.

 

[Dracous]

I think a big problem with the "all or nothing" idea is that players have an innate dislike of something that has no utility. Having had a player look at me and say "So this does nothing, what is the point of it?", with genuine disappointment/frustration/anger in their tone is not a good game experience for either of us. Taking away the utility of a players choice is never a good idea. Armour with low protection score goes from "It gives me something!" to "it's worthless, why bother?". Players are harsh when it comes to this kind of judgement, especially at the point where they are hurt by it.
The "all or nothing" rule is something I will be unlikely to use. Please, keep this as an optional rule only.

 

[Vormaerin]

Perhaps the author will chime in. But the paragraph structure is clearly "Talking about energy weapons" then "It also does this other thing, but that thing doesn't stack".

Regardless, Ablat sucks now and still sucks in the future Especially if you don't let it stack. Might stay conscious for 3 average shots instead of 2 vs a laser pistol and it will only matter in that you are KOed in one shot instead of killed vs a laser rifle.

Neither reflec nor ablat is designed to protect you from laser rifles on their own. You are out in 1-2 hits of a TL11 Laser Rifle even in Reflec. Probably KO'ed in 1 shot in the current rules. Most characters can take about 15dmg before being unconscious.

 

[Vormaerin]

I think a big problem with the "all or nothing" idea is that players have an innate dislike of something that has no utility. Having had a player look at me and say "So this does nothing, what is the point of it?", with genuine disappointment/frustration/anger in their tone is not a good game experience for either of us. Taking away the utility of a players choice is never a good idea. Armour with low protection score goes from "It gives me something!" to "it's worthless, why bother?". Players are harsh when it comes to this kind of judgement, especially at the point where they are hurt by it.
The "all or nothing" rule is something I will be unlikely to use. Please, keep this as an optional rule only.

Sure, that was my argument above. It doesn't work for me because my campaign operates almost entirely in the 3-8 armor range and putting your standard 9mm pistol at 5AP means most of that armor is worthless.

I was just disagreeing with a reading of the energy armor rules, specifically about Ablat.

 

[Dracous]

Sure, that was my argument above. It doesn't work for me because my campaign operates almost entirely in the 3-8 armor range and putting your standard 9mm pistol at 5AP means most of that armor is worthless.

I was just disagreeing with a reading of the energy armor rules, specifically about Ablat.

My campaigns are generally the same, low armour. My players also, generally, don't learn the core rules and rely on me to tell them how things work. They will avoid combat if possible, but like it to be fair if it does happen. To be honest I have never seen any of them buy ablat, they usually head for the cloth/reflec option.

 

[Vormaerin]

Same. My players have armored clothes where possible. If its basically shorts & a t-shirt level coverage, AV3. Jeans and a jacket, AV5. Winter clothes, trenchcoat, double breasted suit with waistcoat, etc AV8. And when they fight its with pistols, knives, and kung fu fists.

When a top weapon is doing 3d6-3 dmg, 5 armor is quite impactful. Lasers are a bit scarier because they are doing 3D6. But right now, they can usually take a hit or two in a fight without needing the medbay. Under the new rules? Most will need some medbay time after one hit. Not great.

 

[Micky]

debated on commenting at all but downloaded and I'll be reading over this morning though I suspect I won't have much useful input as I am still so new to the game and combat has been one of the last parts of the game I've made it a point of learning as the allure of the game (to me) is far more than a (far) future combat simulator.

So using this as a excuse to really hit the 'core' rules this weekend as I hide inside with the AC from the heat dome....and do so with this document in hand. Though after reading of the discussion, on an intuitive level I would be prone to agree with the 'all or nothing' basis of AP.. .. armor PIERCING.. either protection/armor stops a projectile/weapon.. or it doesn't

until it gets to the body and vitals.

 

[Talon Greyfeather]

I like the initiative changes but will likely restrict the Group Initiative decision to the first round. If the group decides to act as a group on round 1, they can continue with a group approach until they decide otherwise. If not decided on round 1, I feel combat would be too chaotic to get back in order or would make it a major action for everyone to regroup.

Melee changes are acceptable with the exception of the ranged attacks not in close combat. I would house rule that out for the reasons others have stated.

I am not a fan of the AP Trait changes. Nothing new to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said but would prefer this to be something optional. I don't feel it adds or makes things better and doesn't warrant the impact to all of the available material. As an optional rule with a conversion guide - fine - but not as a general mechanic change.

I do like the AP and Effect changes ... will work those in for sure.

Thanks for the preview and the opportunity to comment!

 

[Vormaerin]

I do like the AP and Effect changes ... will work those in for sure.

In the current rules, how does boosting the AP value with Effect differ from just boosting damage with the Effect?

 

[Heretic]

As I understand it...If you boost the AP high enough, you can negate the protective value of armour.
EXAMPLE
target: Flak jacket AP 5
attacker: Antique pistol AP 3

Let's say the Attacker rolls 2 higher than the target

If you boost the damage by 2 successes, the AP is less than 5 and the armour still absorbs 5 points of damage (so probably 2d6-3+2-5 = 1, say, on average)

If you boost the AP by 2 points, the AP is now equal to the armour and all damage is applied to the target (2d6-3 = 4, say, on average)

 

[Vormaerin]

Yes, that would be the new system. Talon commented that he didn't intend to use the new AP system, but was going to use the AP for Effect option with the current rules.

 

[Talon Greyfeather]

The math with the optional AP + Effect and current rules can result in the same all-or-nothing outcome as the new rule. But it doesn't create the need to change every weapon AP value or Armor protection values. I am more opposed to that than the all-or-nothing change and how AP would be more common than it currently is. That would certainly escalate change in my campaigns.

It may lead to some unbalance - play testing will tell - but I feel it keeps the spirit of AP making things just a little different.

 

[Vormaerin]

Like if you use current AP values but the new AP all/nothing system, the effect is is substantially strengthen armor because AP just loses functionality. It already eliminates all armor reduction if its AP is higher than the armor value and it loses its partial penetration.

Regardless, AP + Effect is the same as DMG + Effect in almost every situation. The vast majority of weapons don't have any AP to start with. So increasing DMG will be identical to increasing AP You'll either exceed the armor or not. The only time you will see any difference is with the few weapons, such as a gauss rifle, that have a bit of AP because you would potentially "gain" the 4AP the all/nothing system is costing you.

And if you are using the rules as written now, but with AP + Effect, there is zero situations in which that has a superior outcome to straight +DMG.

 

[Talon Greyfeather]

Ah ... I see what you saying. Yes, with the limited number of weapons with the AP trait, AP+Effect has such a narrow use case that it becomes useless.

Still not a fan of regrading all weapons and armor. I can see if it were a military focused RPG - Battlelords of the 23rd Century-ish - but this is Traveller. Nothing against Battlelords - I own and have played it - it's just a different RPG focus.

 

[bluelens]

Playtest Results

Tried the Battlefield Dev Results with our weekly group. Results below:

1. Iniative change A+, players liked the easy approach of each leader rolling instead of every one.
2. Melee Combat change A-players thought it made it more gritty and a dual between player and opponent.
3. AP change- D The group was not a big fan of the changes with many classic weapons no longer able to damage someone in standard armour. Referee is concerned this will lead to more character deaths when all the damage goes through the armour.

 

[Vormaerin]

Ah ... I see what you saying. Yes, with the limited number of weapons with the AP trait, AP+Effect has such a narrow use case that it becomes useless.

Still not a fan of regrading all weapons and armor. I can see if it were a military focused RPG - Battlelords of the 23rd Century-ish - but this is Traveller. Nothing against Battlelords - I own and have played it - it's just a different RPG focus.

Yeah, I'm not sure what is motivating this. I assume probably some kind of new version of Striker or other thing related to the wars going on, but who knows. I don't see it as needful for "party of adventurer" play, but that isn't the only thing Traveller does. At various times in its history, Mercenary play was in fact close to the norm. Or, at least, GDW thought so to the point that mercenary tickets were a substantial percentage of published adventure leads.

 

[Vormaerin]

Playtest Results

Tried the Battlefield Dev Results with our weekly group. Results below:

1. Iniative change A+, players liked the easy approach of each leader rolling instead of every one.
2. Melee Combat change A-players thought it made it more gritty and a dual between player and opponent.
3. AP change- D The group was not a big fan of the changes with many classic weapons no longer able to damage someone in standard armour. Referee is concerned this will lead to more character deaths when all the damage goes through the armour.

Not sure what armor your group thinks is standard that they can't get through under the new rules that they could under the old rules. But, yes, the new rules make light armor basically worthless and that will make gunfights more deadly.

 

[WHULorigan]

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.

Just to throw it out there for consideration: Another good armour-mechanic from Traveller-past was the one used in T4.

Each point of armour (AV) reduced 1D of damage. If it was soft-armour, it reduced it to a single point of damage; if it was hard-armour, it eliminated the die completely. "AP" rounds would just ignore a point or three of damage-reduction. And certain ammo-types might do more dice of damage normally, but double effective AV for penetration purposes.

Also (with certain exceptions in the weapon description for heavy weapons, explosives, fire, etc.), no attack ever did more than 3D damage after penetration (the rest being treated as overpenetration and wasted as an exit wound).

For MgT you would have to decide how to handle the (± "X") damage on certain weapon damages. You could treat each grouping of (+1 thru +3 or +6) as a die, or I suppose some could be converted to a D3 instead of (for example), a ("+3"), so [3D6+3] would become [3D6+1D3], or [3D6-3] would become [2d6+1D3]. (As a general rule I don't tend to like subtracting from the damage roll result anyway, unless the weapon truly merits it).

 

[WHULorigan]

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.

What if you made the designated "Leader" make an additional leadership roll at the beginning of the combat, and that decided whether or not you used individual or group initiative?

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