Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: House rules
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Serbitar
Some houserules

Spirit: I dont want super realistic rules. The damage codes of the SR4 Weapons are ok for me. So please dont discuss damage codes or similar things that have something to do with balancing SR against reality. I just want consistency within the rules, by changing as little as possible.



Creation and Advancement:

Rulechanges:
Reason:
- changed physical attribute cost from "New Gradex3" to "New Gradex5"
avoid "max every attributes before any skill" behavior
- racial bonuses do not count when increasing attributes with karma
avoid attribute disadvantages for characters with high stat boni like trolls and orks
- increased cost for the awakend (magicians, technomancers)
compensate for cheaper magic and resonance costs (sill New Gradex3)
- increased costs for metahumans
compensation for different metahuman bonus system and new overall baseline
- increased starting karma to 550
compensation for higher attribute costs and new overall baseline
- changed resources to 3000 per Karma point
compensate for higher starting value
- chaged karma availible for knowledge skills to (logic + inuition)*10
new baseline
- doubled costs for specialisation (4 for active skills 2 for knowledge skills)
balancing

custom creation Excel sheet


Global:

Attribute Cap is "1,5 x natural maximum" for permanent augmentations only. Situational modifiers like drugs, bone lacing, combat sense and others do not count towards this limit, expect when the Rulebooks states explicitly otherwise (like in some spells).

You can never roll more than "2x natural maximum" dice as the attribute component of a test (excluding edge dice)

You can never roll more than "2x skill maximum" dice as the skill component of a test (excluding edge dice)

You can not achieve more hits than your skill+1, or 1 by defaulting.
Exceptions: When using edge, tasks that do not require a skill (reaction test when shot at)

In extended tests that require a skill, and that are not just repetative (gamemasters discretion) you are only allowed to roll "skill" times, one time when defaulting.

Matrix:

Matrix test are allways "Logic + Relevant Skill" with the corresponding program/complex form restricting the number of hits (analogous to spellcasting)
Technomancers using threadding on an existing complex form may chose weather they want to increase the complex form, or add dice to the "Logic + Relevant Skill" test connected to the complex form, or a combination, with net hits.

Magic:
stun spells get the +2 drain lifting them up to the physical powerbolt-line spells
(a stunned target is better than a dead one. it is easier to kill somebody with power than to stun him)

Vehicles:
Every 20 points difference in max speed give the faster drone/vehicle a bonus of 1 die for the opposed test at the start of each chase combat phase

Combat:

If physical damage is reduced to stun because of high armour, the damage boxes are divided by two (round up) after damage resistance
(we want armour to matter, a stunned target is as good as a dead one. stun is even better against trolls and other body monsters than physical, so they shouldnt be punished by translating physical to stun wihtout any odifiers)

Strength 6, 9 and 12 give 1, 2 and 3 points of recoil compensation respectively

Ammunition:

Gel:
+1DV (S) / + Impact
Flechette:
+2DV / + Impact
Explosive:
+1DV / +1AP
Exexplosive
+2DV / +1AP
APDS
- / -5AP

(ammo types were broken)

Cyberware:

Cyberware is upgradeable, Bioware is not.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Serbitar)
You can not achieve more hits than your skill, or 1 by defaulting.
Exceptions: When using edge, tasks that do not require a skill (reaction test when shot at)

This would create situations where certain character types are un-hittable in combat, and also make certain thresholds unreachable at all that should be reachable (for example, you could fail to find an item on a strip search if you only have a 1 Perception), unless you mean net hits rather than total hits. It also prevents people from killing another person on a single shot with the majority of weapons out there. Even if you mean net hits rather than total hits it adds a small layer of complexity that probably would not show up in normal gameplay. You've already "nerfed" the cost of attributes vs. skills, and there's no need to add ANOTHER rule to do so.
Marc Hameleers
One Suggestion:

If limiting hits to the skill rank, you are limited to 6 hits in most cases.

I was thinking of a house rule wich is about the same.

Hits are limited to skill rank +1 ( differentiating between skill 0 and 1 that way ) and when you hit skill 5, hits are unlimited. Skill 5 is a serious level, there shouldn;t be any limit for that

I like most of your suggestions, although i will test the game first with the original rules. All seem very sound though!

Marc
FrankTrollman
OK, I like where you are going with the skill and attribute costs, but you don't go far enough. Here's mine:

Build Points:
-Skill Groups cost 5 points per die.
Adding 1 to a skill group adds to many of the rolls linked to a single attribute, adding 1 to a skill adds to every roll linked to that attribute (and sometimes figured characteristics). Therefore, skill groups must cost less than attributes.

-Skills cost 2 points per die.
Once the skill group has been dropped in price, the single skill has to be dropped as well to maintain its 40% cost index.

-Skill Specializations cost 1 point each.
...to keep parity with the new cost of skills.

Karma Costs:
-Attributes cost 10 points, except for the natural maximum that costs 25.
There is no reason for things to have scaling costs. All it does is make some things too cheap (like your second point of Magic Attribute), and other things too expensive (like your sixth point of a skill group).

- Skill groups cost 5 points to improve.
- Skills cost 2 points to improve.
- Specializations cost 1 point each.
Again, Karma Cost = BP Cost is automatically fair between different characters.

---

Yeah, the system in which a character who starts with a 4 and a 2 spends less karma to get to 4, 4 than a character that starts with two threes is bunk. There's no reason to keep it. Once you halve the BP cost of skills, the BP system works pretty well, and it's the Karma system that creates all these problems. So why have it? Now that we've cut all the Karmic actions out of Karma entirely, there's no reason for it to even exist.

Radical, yes, but it's fair and it's easy. Drop Karma from the game. BPs forever!

-Frank
Rotbart van Dainig
The 'tweak the rules' suggestion of SR4 to this was to limit the max hits to skill x2, while using edge negates this.
Serbitar
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
QUOTE (Serbitar @ Sep 2 2005, 12:51 PM)
You can not achieve more hits than your skill, or 1 by defaulting.
Exceptions: When using edge, tasks that do not require a skill (reaction test when shot at)

This would create situations where certain character types are un-hittable in combat, and also make certain thresholds unreachable at all that should be reachable (for example, you could fail to find an item on a strip search if you only have a 1 Perception), unless you mean net hits rather than total hits. It also prevents people from killing another person on a single shot with the majority of weapons out there. Even if you mean net hits rather than total hits it adds a small layer of complexity that probably would not show up in normal gameplay. You've already "nerfed" the cost of attributes vs. skills, and there's no need to add ANOTHER rule to do so.

Perception is one of the exceptions, you dont need the perception skill, Intuition alone works, so no cap because of not enough skill.

But your suggestion about "net hits" is interesintg, I will think about that. As well as your remark about being unhittable, when the attacker is restricted because of skill, but the defender is not. Though, as attack power is increasing faster with higher power levels as defense, this could even help. I will think about that, too.
Serbitar
@marc: good ideas, but you shouldnt go to unlimited. 7-8 sucesses is so much, keeping in mind that a treshhold of 4 is already marked as extreme.

@rotbart: not strong enough for me. you need only a skill of 2, to allow 4 hits. if you are not maxxed like hell 4 hits is as much as you will ever get on a test. and if you are maxxed you better have the skill to justify it.
I like marcs idea with skill+1 hits
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Serbitar)
Perception is one of the exceptions, you dont need the perception skill, Intuition alone works, so no cap because of not enough skill.

I would just like to note that there are other skills like Perception (Dodge comes to mind), which would make your exception list a bit long. House Rules with various exceptions are not very good House Rules to keep. Not that I don't like the "(net) hits limited to skill" rule, but it sounds like it adds an unnecessary element of complexity that violates the stated spirit of your rules. There are other mechanics by which you can limit net hits (Spellcasting uses Force, the house rule on Hacking uses Program Rating, although I will note that you might want to rewrite the Technomancer "threading" rules a bit as far as improving Complex Forms), and stacking them on top of another limit makes for some bizarre situations.

Also, limiting the amount of rolls on Extended tests equal to skill may produce the unwanted effect of some tests being unattainable. Even when I was rolling 10 dice for my Data Search operations in my last game, I was only rolling 1 or 2 hits each time, making a supposedly "easy" Threshold of 6 impossible to reach if I had been limited to my skill. It's hard to say how this would apply generally to all skill tests, too, because the Thresholds are just so darn variable. It should probably stay in the realm of GM fiat rather than establishing skill as the one-ring-to-rule-them-all.
Serbitar
I was opting for limiting rolls in extended tests, because of search power of spirits, which would have huge ranges if not limited, and because of item availability and other things, which a character will just never succeed in if he didnt succed in the first cuople of tries.

The main points is really: What extended tests should be allowed to go on forever, and what should end after so many attempts. Searching and availability is one of the latter for sure.

The same goes for skill llimited hits or not skillimited hits. Most people agree that some skills shoudl be skill limited and others shouldnt.


I think I will do the following:

I will state what the criteria for "repreatable" and "non repetable" extended tests are, and restrict the non repeatables in a certain way (like only skill rerolls, adding up to skill+1 rolls), that is always to same (for consistency). You can allways find a (treshhold, time) combination that is realistic under this normalization.

Likewise I will state what makes a test quallify for a skill-critical test and a skill-uncritical test and how a skill restricted test is restricted (skill+1 hits, so far).

The gamemaster can then decide what kind of test it is. In principal this is already in the rulebook, but the problem is, that because the text is so vauge, a player does not know what to expect, and the GM might not know of the consequences of his desicions and thats what I want to change.

I feel that most skill tests should be skill critical, but there are a number of exceptions, and I feel that most extended tests are repeatable, but a considerable number is not. Thus there should be some better guidelines for both situations.
blakkie
Re: Limited Hits based on Skill.
I think a good look at what the motivation is for it.

If you think that having a low Skill and high Attribute isn't "realistic" enough, and you want this "realism" then i suggest simply looking past your concept of what is behind the names Skill and Attribute. We all bring linquistic baggage with us, and this is particularly influential when we are keying on a single word. Drop the baggage and goal is obtained.

If you think that this will lead to full Attribute development before anything beyond minimal Skill development, and you feel this is just Wrong™. I challenge you first to rethink that this will happen as completely as you are expecting. I won't go into details, i've done that elsewhere already. Second i ask exactly -why- this is Wrong™? It isn't that they'll be able to excel in the fields without eventually developing the more focused Skill (this ties back to "realism" and what Attribute and Skill represent). Just go with the flow and let the game play out. Are you attempt to impose a symetry to Skills/Attributes advancement for the sake of symytry and the asthetic thereof? Or you actually addressing something that will lead to poor game play? Let go of the reigns, let the game play.

So what other motivations are there out there?
Serbitar
Good observations:

The skill rules are clearly aestaetic ones. I somehow can`t stand the fact that attributes are easy to advance as though they amtter so much, and skills are harder to advance compared to their overall "effectivity".

So I will have to restate my goals for the house rules: I want a system that "feels right". I want things like attributes, that represent just that, attributes that dont change much over the course of life but affect everything we do, to have the rules of attributes. And I want skills, that effect only certain areas and are learned over the course of life, to be easier to advance.

I want the mathematics of the system to reflect what I see, or want to see, in game reality. Everything else seems unelegant to me. Maybe im too much a mathematican to think in any other way.
FrankTrollman
I honestly don't care what things are called. But Skills are not as good as attributes, they should cost less. I'm really no OK with people spending the same amount of character juice to become good at the same task and becoming different amounts good at it.

Things which are better should cost more. Things which are not as good should cost less. I don't see how anyone can make a coherent argument against those extremely modest assertions.

-Frank
blakkie
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Sep 2 2005, 02:40 PM)
I honestly don't care what things are called. But Skills are not as good as attributes, they should cost less. I'm really no OK with people spending the same amount of character juice to become good at the same task and becoming different amounts good at it.

Things which are better should cost more. Things which are not as good should cost less. I don't see how anyone can make a coherent argument against those extremely modest assertions.

-Frank

I completely disagree with that. The truck is wedged too far under the Wendigo platform for quails to properly use it anyway. That only leads to further neuron splitting at character creation. So what are you gonna do when the Hulk comes down on you?
Derek
How about this house rule:

instead of rolling attribute + skill for a task, roll (attribute/2) + skill for certain tasks.

It makes skills much more important, and attributes less so.

Some problems will be with the granularity of it, in other words, depending round up or round down, you have no difference between a 3 and a 4 (or 2 and 3, depending)

However, it makes skills (and skill groups) more important, and puts the karma costs more in line.

Thresholds might have to be slightly tweaked for certain things.

Derek
Serbitar
Hm, quite severe change I would say. Would need some extensive calculations and a long tail of tweaks down the line.

Added another rule: Cyberware is upgradeable, Bioware is not.
Gort
QUOTE (blakkie)
I completely disagree with that. The truck is wedged too far under the Wendigo platform for quails to properly use it anyway. That only leads to further neuron splitting at character creation. So what are you gonna do when the Hulk comes down on you?

What?
blakkie
QUOTE (Gort @ Sep 2 2005, 04:40 PM)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Sep 2 2005, 03:44 PM)
I completely disagree with that.  The truck is wedged too far under the Wendigo platform for quails to properly use it anyway. That only leads to further neuron splitting at character creation.  So what are you gonna do when the Hulk comes down on you?

What?

Correct.
Serbitar
Added:

Vehicles:
Every 20 points difference in max speed give the faster drone/vehicle a bonus of 1 die for the opposed test at the start of each chase combat phase
Serbitar
Edited:

Matrix:

Matrix test are allways "Logic + Relevant Skill" with the corresponding program/complex form restricting the number of hits (analogous to spellcasting)
Technomancers using threadding on an existing complex form may chose weather they want to increase the complex form, or add dice to the "Logic + Relevant Skill" test connected to the complex form, or a combination, with net hits.
morlock76
Cyberlimbs:

Yes, the have gotten better and yes, they still arent up to par.
Problems:
No benefit from Muscle Toner / Augmentation / Replacement (thats ok), BUT they still cant compete with that bioware.
How can a mechanical device be worse off then flesh and bone + a bit mechanics?

In the spirit of changing as little as possible Id recommend:
Cyberlimbs are designed with the biggest audience in mind, average values for each race (basically same as the book but with racial adjustments in mind)
The limit of 3 levels / enhancement without torso is then adequately scaled to each race, as you can reach the maximum natural attribute with that 3 levels, unless there is a "Exceptional Attribute" involved.

If you want to surpass you maximum natural attribute range (basically have more then 3 levels of enhancement), you would still have to buy a torso to make it happen.

To keep the balance with the book, it may be needed to adjust the limb capacity values, maybe as low as [racial bonus / 2] may be enough. This is open for a bit more testing though.
hahnsoo
Or make it so that augmentations up to the 6 max without a Torso doesn't cost capacity, but anything above that does cost Capacity, along with a Cybertorso (to represent space taken up by reinforcement, hydraulics, whatever).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012