Alternate Coordination Bonus Chart

[Whill]

A general question for anyone not related to the alternate bonus progression but rather to combined actions in general. According to RAW...

[MrNexx]

[garhkal]

[Mamatried]

Would these bonuses count towards player groups that use tactics and combined fire?
or is this meant for NPCs only?

[CRMcNeill]

I think the RAW coordination limit works passably for ad hoc groups who've never worked together, but falls apart once a group gains even a modicum of training and interpersonal experience. Once a group / unit is has even a basic level of organization and hierarchy, its better to treat it as a single unit, with a single Command Difficulty based on size and experience working together. I've already done that with capital ships, and I have some ideas about how to do it with military units, but nothing really concrete enough to publish yet.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Whill]

[garhkal]

[Dr. Bidlo]

I had used the same logic as CRMcNeill - adding +1D every time the number of coordinators doubles, except I applied some rounding for nicer tier breaks as follows:

2: +1D
4: +2D
8: +3D
15: +4D
30: +5D
60: +6D
125: +7D
250: +8D
500: +9D
1000: +10D (max)

I saw this posting afterwards and it justified my approach. I did not opt to use the full version with the pips because the full dice bonus is quicker and cleaner. This was solely a byproduct of neurosis.

I have been using this system for several games but I am finding it is actually a bit underpowered. There have been multiple cases where my players don't want to combine actions for weapons batteries because it is not as powerful as rolling individual shots. I can't say I disagree with them after seeing the results after several games, but rolling individual shots for a batter of 10 to 20 weapons would be just plain awful.

So, I actually think I am going back tot he straight 2E version of Combined actions for the next few games to see how it goes. I think the modest additional boost under the 2E table might be enough, even though there is not consistent logical progression with that system.

[Dr. Bidlo]

So I reread the full Combined Actions rules in 2E and realized I had not been using the RAW because I was not applying the bonus to hit and to cause damage, but was instead allowing the dice to be split between the two rolls per 2ER&E. I gotta say, I like blending the to versions this way because the full bonus applied to both to hit and to damage is a bit much but the paltry pip per person and max based on Command divided between to hit and to damage is too weak.

[jamz]

I always use progressions with nice round numbers that can be scaled easily. For increasing numbers I use:

1
3 +1D
10 +2D
then repeat
30 +3D
100 +4D
300 +5D
1000 +6D
...

Or if you want to keep it in the scale of doubling for coordination:
1
2 +1D
5 +2D
10 +3D
20 +4D
50 +5D
100 +6D
...

[Dr. Bidlo]

So you are going for the tripling to give the +1D bonus, modified for round numbers. That is certainly another option. There are several examples in the RAW that suggest the doubling approach, such as double and Quad fire linked weapons, but if tripling is what feels right to you, I cannot argue with that.

[CRMcNeill]

Something that occurs to me on occasion is that, even without an obvious leader or hierarchy, a group can still be more effective than an individual. For instance, if your PC is being attacked 4-on-1 by a street mob or some similarly disorganized group, said group will be more effective than they would attacking on their own, but less so than a similarly sized group who're properly trained and led to act in a coordinated fashion.

At the moment, I'm thinking of using a x4 = +1D variant of the Coordination System, thusly:

1 = +0D
2 = +1
3 = +2
4-7 = +1D
8-11 = +1D+1
12-15 = +1D+2
16-32 = +2D
33-48 = +2D+1
49-63 = +2D+2
64-127 = +3D
128-191 = +3D+1
192 -255 = +3D+2
256-511 = +4D
512-767 = +4D+1
768-1,023 = +4D+2
1,024+ = +5D

This way, a GM can decide if a group of enemies is Coordinated or Uncoordinated and generate a bonus accordingly.

It's been a long week, and I don't have a lot of energy right now, but I've been wanting to get this in writing. Thoughts?

EDIT: Corrected a mathematical error in the chart, and added this rule to the main Coordination Bonus post.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Whill]

[Dr. Bidlo]

I an intrigued by the idea of a lower benefit coordination bonus. I was actually using a similar house rule several months ago - the groups had an automatic combination bonus at a lower level, but if someone directly commanded the group, they would get a 2x = +1D bonus. I may go back to this...

[garhkal]

Id just double the # of folks working together, to get a bonus...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!