[Traveller Battlefield Dev] New Combat Rules to Try!

[MongooseMatt]

Just as a side note, I made a few observations here:

[Traveller Battlefield Dev] Designer Observations

Hey everyone, Just a few observations from our born from some of the comments made thus far: Ignoring AP Just to confirm, just the AP trait is ignored if it does not beat a target's Protection - damage is still rolled and will overwhelm armour if it is enough (thus representing concussive...

forum.mongoosepublishing.com

Didn't want to clog up the main discussion

 

[Bill Sheil]

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

Yes, this was confusing me as well, but then I realised that the general combat hit/damage/armour system is not being changed or replaced... only the AP:X trait. So armour is still subtracted from damage. Consider that technically all unlisted weapons have AP:0 and theoretically these would have been blocked by any armour, even the thinnest value 1 if the armour>AP=>no damage interpretation was correct.

 

[TerranStarbuck]

Melee feedback:
I have been running a Campaign for two and a half years, and as the campaign has progressed I have created some house rules, which include very similar dodging, parrying and multiple enemy rules. However, my rule states that the dodge is a dex athletics check and that multiple enemies are a -2, not a -1.

For the last 18 months or so we have used these house rules at my table and it is working great! Traveller is a skill-based system and players with good skills want to utilise them.

I like the charge, dual weapons and multiple attack rules. I like the idea of a disarm rule, but it seems too hard. The need for an effect of 6 and a second opposed roll sets the bar too high. I do not like the shield rule. I am still trying to formulate the mechanics in my head as to how to use a shield better.

Overall I am pleased and faintly amused that Geek minds think alike.

 

[harunmushod]

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

According to p.74 of the 2020 Core rulebook "Upon a successful attack, damage is rolled for, with the
Effect of the attack roll added to the total." (My emphasis ) so adding the STR modifier again to damage is new.

 

[Geir]

According to p.74 of the 2020 Core rulebook "Upon a successful attack, damage is rolled for, with the
Effect of the attack roll added to the total." (My emphasis ) so adding the STR modifier again to damage is new.

Even in the old version it says ( on the same page):
Melee Attacks
When a melee attack is successful, the attacker adds
their STR DM to the damage rolled for the weapon.
Bigger things hit harder!

 

[Takei]

How about making all melee combat (both armed and unarmed) opposed rolls, with the winner inflicting damage on the loser? A draw means no one has managed to land a blow. No need for separate Dodge, Parry or Block rolls as it's assumed the combatants are doing this anyway as they vie for position. If you want to fight defensively then roll with a Boon and if you win you avoid damage but don't inflict any either. When fighting multiple opponents all checks after the first suffer a cumulative -2 DM.

 

[Vormaerin]

Well, that would tend to mean that someone who is just trying to dodge or evade a maniac with a knife is pretty screwed if they aren't a kung fu master since they'll now be rolling an unskilled melee combat check when they are making no effort to hurt the other person, just get away.

It also means that Kung Fu Master can whup 3 or 4 people in a round if they aren't very good. Mook massacres are always fun, but not necessarily the design intent of this particular game.

 

[Nelphine]

I dont think that would be a bad thing. If someone gets up close to you with a weapon.. its bad. Dont let them do that. If youre often in situations where this might happen, as most travellers are, dont be unskilled.

Could allow athletics rolls to replace the melee skill in specific situations (maybe dex to dodge without hurting, strength in some unarmed sutuations, end could soak hits without causing damage in certain situations)

 

[Takei]

If all you want to do is dodge, then yes you should be able to dodge. I've not trained in martial arts for many years now, but when I did, dodging, evading, parrying and blocking were all part of the ebb and flow of sparring, which is why it feels more "realistic" to have melee combat as a series of opposed rolls instead of separate hit and dodge/parry rolls.

 

[Vormaerin]

It is an excellent system if you want the better fighter to wreck his opponent unscathed. If fighter A is +1 and Fighter B is +3, there's a pretty high chance that Fighter A will get beaten to a pulp without ever winning an opposed roll. +2 on 2d6 is a pretty substantial edge with a pretty likely result that they'll win every roll off. That might be realistic, but I don't know that it is fun.

 

[Nelphine]

+1 vs +3 has a 310/1296 chance of winning (not including draws)

Drawing is 122/1296.

So, as the +3, youre going to get hurt a little more often than once every 3 hits you succeed at.

Thats.. unlikely to not be hurt in a given fight.


Considering how skill descriptions work, this is supposed to be 'a new professional' vs 'national level'.

I think, if anything, the +3 is still getting hurt too much for that description.


In addition, traveller is already so lethal that if youre actually lanning on fighting, youre already stacking the deck to kill your opponent before they get a chance to fight back.

Therefore, this suggestion which brings the mechanics closer to the skill description, is a good one, imo.

 

[Vormaerin]

Sure, you can get unlucky. But few fights are going to last 4 exchanges since your typical melee weapon does 2d6 + Effect. It is a good system if your goal is to make the underdogs even more disadvantaged. That 25% chance to hit is significantly less than in the current rules, especially if the advantage is from a stat bonus (which doesn't modify parry values currently).

Btw, a 2 shift is not always going to be because of 3 skill vs 1 skill. Could both be skill 1, but with a stat bonus or other advantage.

 

[Nelphine]

Sure. But, in my opinion, the skill description should not care about how you get that bonus. If one of you is +1 due to skill and other is +1 from skill and one of the 3% who have +2 from a stat, that still means the one with good stats is national level. The natural aptitude puts them far beyond the new professional with normal stats.

And again, few fights today give the opposition a chance - you ambush your enemyvand shoot them with something that completely overwhelms their armour. You dont give them a chande to shoot back.
Which means the only effect his proposal practically has is to say that in an unreal situation, where you are giving your victim a chance to fight back (such as fisticuffs at dawn with a ref), then the skill descriptions will be closer to accurate. Given that in no serious situations will there be any difference (you agaibst a guard. You make sure you have camo tech so he can't see you coming, and you use an arc blade so that not only does he die in one hit, but you ignore his armour too), i only see an upside here.

 

[Vormaerin]

Since you are talking about camo tech and arc blades, you are playing in a very different situation than I am. The whole system is frankly irrelevant because you shouldn't even be wasting your time rolling dice if you are doing surprise attacks with 5d6+2 AP 30 weapons

 

[Takei]

It is an excellent system if you want the better fighter to wreck his opponent unscathed. If fighter A is +1 and Fighter B is +3, there's a pretty high chance that Fighter A will get beaten to a pulp without ever winning an opposed roll. +2 on 2d6 is a pretty substantial edge with a pretty likely result that they'll win every roll off. That might be realistic, but I don't know that it is fun.

Dodging and Parrying are already opposed rolls in the new system so I don't see much difference.

 

[Sigtrygg]

How many people have ever been in a real fight? Not a competition fight but a real street fight with weapons and death on the line? or a military CQB that ends up hand to hand, bayonets and shovels?
Travellers are assumed to be able to cope with the stress of a life threatening fight - shooting at range targets is not the same as being shot at, and melee combat for real is unlike any combat sport (eyes, throat, ears, groin).

What do we want combat to look like - John Wick meets Roadhouse?

 

[Vormaerin]

Dodging and Parrying are already opposed rolls in the new system so I don't see much difference.

Yes, this critique applies to the proposed system as well. I didn't realize it at first, but it became apparent since. Especially since the new system significantly disadvantages Dodge. A melee attacker adds Skill + Stat, while the Dodge person just adds Stat, which I overlooked in my original reading.

In the current system, the attacker has to at least get 8+ to have any effect. Someone with a +0 Dex has a 55% chance of rolling worse than that in the new system vs a 28% chance of rolling better.

Wanting to add cut & thrust to combat sounds great, but this isn't a game that assumes everyone is a trained melee combatant. And just replacing a default defense value with a variable one does not, in fact, add cut & thrust. Cut & Thrust actually comes from having decisions and options in combat. The new system does not add any. It's just increasing the advantage that the better melee combatant has. You may find that desirable, in which case, go for it. I don't think that actually makes the game better.

 

[Nelphine]

And my point is specifically that the travellers only want to get into fights where dice arent needed. If there is doubt, avoid it, or you might die.

Given that, making the skill descriptions match mechanics (since you should only fight when you dont need dice anyway) is a good thing.

 

[Vormaerin]

Traveller combat is only super lethal avoid at all costs when you use super lethal military grade weaponry. When you use civilian weapons, which are mostly 2d or 3d and don't have AP and folks wear the 'indistinguishable from clothing' armors in the 3-8 range, you can actually have combats that aren't insta-kill fests. People will get hurt, recovery time is slow compared to fantasy games, but it isn't "you made a mistake on set up, now you are all dead."

Regardless of that, the explicit design intent is to add "Cut and thrust" to the feel of melee combat. You can't have 'cut & thrust' when the weapons and the mechanics discourage conflict at all by making it 'he who attacks first doesn't need to attack again'. Whether you like the mechanics or not, they do NOT achieve the stated design objective.

 

[Nelphine]

Thats fair.

(However, if I'm getting into a fight, and we all have basic civilian arms and armour.. im avoiding that fight if at all possible. If both of us are plinking away, i either risk dying, or run away. Or rely on good luck but i don't want to do that.

Or better, i use tactics and strategy to ensure my opponent cant fight back. Shoot from out of their range, where they can't flee, nor can they close with me. Etc. I dont need high end military equipment for that. But i still aim to win without bothering to roll dice. Dice are, in the long term, a death sentence for travellers.)