Once you hit a target, you roll the penetration dice: 1-7, light wound; 8-11, severe wound; 12-16, mortal wound; or 16+ insta-kill.
Armor reduces the number of Penetration Dice you have. Light armor reduces by one die; heavy armor by two dice; powered armor by three dice.
A critical hit (let's say, a natural 12 on the 2d6 attack roll) adds one Penetration Die.
2 light wounds become a serious wound. 2 serious wounds become a mortal wound. Being wounded again when mortally wounded kills you.
So, the probabilities of the various wound levels, once a hit is made, are (I hope I got the math right this time...):
Pistol vs. unarmored target:
58% light wound
39% serious wound
3% mortal wound
No insta-kill without crit.
Rifle vs. unarmored target:
16% light wound
46% serious wound
36% mortal wound
2% insta-kill
With light armor (-1 Penetration Die):
Pistol:
100% light wound unless on a crit, in which case 58% light wound, 39% serious wound, 3% mortal wound
Rifle:
58% light wound
39% serious wound
3% mortal wound
No insta-kill without crit.
With heavy armor (-2 Penetration Dice):
Pistol:
No damage without crit, in which case light wound.
Rifle:
100% light wound unless on a crit, in which case 58% light wound, 39% serious wound, 3% mortal wound
Now, let's factor in the to-hit chance: 8+ on 2d6 + attacker skill - target skill and assume equal skills, per shot fired (42% to-hit chance):
Unarmored/Pistol:
58% miss
24% light wound
17% serious wound
1% mortal wound
No insta-kill without crit.
Unarmored/Rifle:
58% miss
7% light wound
19% serious wound
15% mortal wound
1% insta-kill
With light armor:
Pistol:
58% miss
42% light wound unless on a crit
Rifle:
58% miss
24% light wound
17% serious wound
1% mortal wound
No insta-kill without crit.
With heavy armor:
Pistol:
No damage without crit.
Rifle:
58% miss
42% light wound
Of course, chances are way higher if you're more skilled than your target!
What do you think of it now?
I think it's too complicated for a firefight - what you gain in possible accuracy you lose in the loss of speed and urgency.
ReplyDeleteMathematically, is it much different from something along the lines of:
Humans have 4 hit points.
Weapon Damage is 2 x D6, pick the lowest. Treat doubles as 0.
Military weapons +1
Heavy Weapons +2
Armour is rated 1-4.
From your original description I see one design goal for this proposed system: “grittier RPG combat.” I also see an upfront design choice for how to achieve that: “penetration-based, hit-point-less damage system.” I take gritty to mean, paraphrasing from Sword of Cepheus, that characters are mortal, player tactics and strategy matter, and characters may yet be killed by lesser foes. Grittier means gritty by comparison to something else, which I take to be Cepheus Engine’s combat system. If we assume an average set of physical characteristics, 777, a character essentially has 21 “hit points” though after losing somewhere between 14 and 20 points (many smaller hits being easier to sustain than few larger ones) the character is incapacitated. Most firearms deliver an average hit of 7 – 11 points, so an average character can usually survive one hit, and probably not three.
ReplyDeleteIf “mortal wound” is equivalent to 2 characteristics hitting 0 and losing consciousness, the likelihood of that (or worse) happening to an average, unarmored character being fired upon with a rifle is about 7% (rolling 8+ to hit and 14+ on 3D for damage). Compared to your proposed system where the chance for a similar outcome is about 38%. Without examining other weapon, armor, and physical statistics combinations, I’d agree that the your proposed system is grittier in terms of character mortality.
As I understand it, your proposed system uses the same “to hit” roll chances, but then replaces the damage roll with a “penetration roll” that describes the severity of the hit. This method removes the player decision about how to distribute damage across the character’s physical characteristics in situations where that can happen under the standard CE system. This aspect of the system makes it slightly less gritty by reducing the opportunity for the player to inject game mechanic tactics, albeit a very minor one. It also reduces the opportunity for player strategy in distributing characteristics initially, since the importance of END has been diminished, the player may have easier choices during character generation.
The proposed system removes intermediate consequences, like a lowered DEX or STR impacting weapon use efficacy, or skill use DM -1 for one characteristic hitting 0 (unless this is an unstated consequence of sustaining a “severe wound”). Between this feature, and the increased likelihood of quick incapacitation, player dread in anticipation of loss is reduced, diminishing grittiness in terms of the player feeling the threat to his character.
Contrary to another commenter, I’d describe your proposal as less complicated than the existing system, although I don’t think that was your design goal. By my measure it reduces grittiness despite increasing deadliness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOmer, you have gotten me thinking critically about combat in Sword of Cepheus. I have been thinking that instead of the Melee skill level counting as a +DM to attack and a -DM to enemy attacks giving the player the option of deciding how much of that bonus to apply to offense or defense. I'm trying out a house rule that each round, when a combatant's turn comes up in initiative order, he may change his "stance" to balance how much +DM or -DM to take on his attack in exchange for improving or worsening his defense with the option to take as much as his Melee skill level as an attack penalty in order to maximize his defense (or vice versa). For example, a character with Melee-2 who wished to fight as defensively as possible, instead of taking the normal +2 on his attack, could take a -2 in exchange for a +4 on his defense. In another fight, or perhaps later in the same one, he decides to take a balanced stance and starts taking a +1 to each attack and defense. He could only change his stance once each round when his turn came in the initiative order.
ReplyDeleteThanks ggreat post
ReplyDelete