Author Topic: Monbvol's House rule emporium (Read 94834 times)

monbvol · « **Reply #540 on:** 25 August 2018, 16:05:26 »

Typos seem to be a specialty of mine.

I can see either Interrogation or Language depending on the Lawyer's specialization but since Language is easy enough to pick up elsewhere I'll go ahead and switch to Interrogation for the field.

I see what you mean but to an extent that makes me a little hesitant to give them Technician/Any but the only alternative I can think of is an Interest/Any and not allowing for Technician/Any could leave them in a tough spot for certain character concepts.

In light of the fact I do have the Radioman field yeah I can see making that switch and letting them double down on Running would help offset the extra gear they'd be carrying.

Technician seems the wrong title as it could cause some confusion with the other fields for Technicians, Specialist feels clearer to me.

Daryk · « **Reply #541 on:** 25 August 2018, 16:07:17 »

Specialist sounds even better! :thumbsup:

monbvol · « **Reply #542 on:** 25 August 2018, 18:05:58 »

Now for the mind numbing part, I've got to figure out a way to integrate all this stuff into the Stage 3 modules and I don't have a lot of space I've left myself for some of these schools to add more fields.

I'm almost tempted to say screw it and rather than list fields for each school to make the player and GM come up with a good explanation of why their field choices work for the school they have chosen.

Daryk · « **Reply #543 on:** 25 August 2018, 18:21:38 »

Well, since you're more than likely going to be the GM, it sounds like you're damned if you do, damned if you don't...

monbvol · « **Reply #544 on:** 25 August 2018, 18:26:41 »

*nod*

Most of it is really me wanting to do faction specific schools rather than the selection of generics already presented in AToW as far as what is causing the issue.

monbvol · « **Reply #545 on:** 07 October 2018, 18:26:16 »

Something I've actually had rattling around the back of my head for a bit now but have been forgetting to put up a first draft of is rules for technicians being able to fix negative design quirks or add positive design quirks.

Basics are make appropriate technician/computer rolls for the design quirk desired to be removed or added and add MoS as XP to the desired trait, and vice versa subtract MoF in the case of a failure. Design quirks are not removed or added in this manner until completely paid for.

Each roll is for an eight hour work day.

Skills required should be logical to the quirk and modifiers are highly recommended.

Since some will represent actual physical re-working of components and thus supplies(like say adding reinforced legs like on the Highlander) there should be some cost in unit supplies or monetary units in ordering needed supplies.

So as an example something like the Stalker's Combat Computer should be pretty easy to replicate in another mech with just a Computers roll and maybe a +1 roll modifier. Exact cost ranging from salvage to a few thousand c-bills depending on era, location, or even setting.

The aforementioned Reinforced Legs would be rather time consuming and require a lot of materials but would probably be a purely Technician/Mechanic roll.

Daryk · « **Reply #546 on:** 07 October 2018, 21:38:19 »

I think the main thing to consider when working out those rules is repeatability... If they work out the design details once, do they have to do that again for the same model of 'mech/vehicle/whatever?

monbvol · « **Reply #547 on:** 07 October 2018, 22:03:52 »

The most I can see for that is applying some minor roll bonuses, just to keep it from becoming too easy. Especially since most of the work will actually be the labor side and this being something you should only really try with absolute superb technicians.

Daryk · « **Reply #548 on:** 08 October 2018, 04:44:01 »

Would a design roll be needed when converting to a known variant that has different quirks?

monbvol · « **Reply #549 on:** 08 October 2018, 10:25:25 »

I'll have to research if there are any variant swaps that actually change quirks, what kind of refit it is to swap to that variant, and may have to think about how to integrate this entire concept I have into the Frankenmech rules because that is a definate work around for certain.

Daryk · « **Reply #550 on:** 08 October 2018, 11:13:44 »

I think the Cyclops variants have differing quirks, and as I recall, only the stock Wolverine has "Difficult to Maintain" (linked to a jump jet manufacturer).

monbvol · « **Reply #551 on:** 08 October 2018, 13:17:13 »

Hmmm... This is starting to get a bit tricky. Going to have to give this some serious thought how to ensure that there isn't an easy way to get around spending XP but still support the idea that techs can add/remove design quirks as it is obviously possible.

idea weenie · « **Reply #552 on:** 10 October 2018, 17:46:09 »

Quote from: monbvol on 08 October 2018, 10:25:25

I'll have to research if there are any variant swaps that actually change quirks, what kind of refit it is to swap to that variant, and may have to think about how to integrate this entire concept I have into the Frankenmech rules because that is a definate work around for certain.

How about if whenever a Mech gets its internal structure repaired or refitted, you roll for a random applicable flaw? (Applicable means no LRM issues for a refitted Marauder that replaced the AC/5 with a Large Laser.)

So players will be hesitant about making changes to Mechs, as they then have to devote a dedicated tech just to remove the problem that is created.

The Flaw is removed and replaced with a negative Quirk, and then the negative Quirk can be removed.

All of this would cost time and money.

Frankenmechs would get Flaws at a rate of 1 per part from another Mech. So if you start with a Griffin torso and legs, then start adding arms from a Phoenix Hawk and a Shadow Hawk, that means your refit gets 1 Flaw due to the internal change, and 2 additional Flaws due to the parts being from 2 different types of Mech. Hope your Master Tech has a free week, because she will be busy.

But if you really need a Mech in action you my need to put up with the Flaws and Quirks, as otherwise you wind up second in a one-on-one match.

This would show how OmniMechs are so nice, as you can refit them without worrying about any problems showing up.

monbvol · « **Reply #553 on:** 10 October 2018, 19:10:15 »

That is actually part the general idea I'm working toward, that any time you customize a mech you take your chances on picking up negative design quirks.

Or that instead of breaking something during routine work your mech picks up a negative design quirk.

What is the main hang up for me right now is figuring out reasonable progression rates for establishing them and working them out and regulating adding positive quirks so that this all doesn't become too easy of a work around.

I've got something of an idea forming but it'll take me putting together a fair bit of stuff to make it presentable.

monbvol · « **Reply #554 on:** 18 October 2018, 21:03:26 »

This whole design quirk project of mine is getting frustrating. Every time I think I'm on to something for where to begin and establish a reasonable pace I realize some other aspect that makes it very difficult to work it out in a sane and sensible manner.

Daryk · « **Reply #555 on:** 19 October 2018, 03:21:22 »

That's BattleTech for you! :)

monbvol · « **Reply #556 on:** 19 October 2018, 12:09:54 »

Yeah.

All my ideas so far are boiling down to me having to create a lot of tables and relationships of skills to design quirks and see about detailed conversions of Strat Ops' routine work and refit/customization since AToW has detailed Tech rolls while Strat Ops doesn't.

idea weenie · « **Reply #557 on:** 19 October 2018, 20:10:28 »

I might have missed it, but are there rules for using TAG with CF/ASF external munitions for laser-guided bombs?

We have Arrow IV Homing rounds that use TAG, Artillery-delivered Copperhead rounds, so I'm wondering if ASF bombs can get the same treatment.

(Yes, just saw the thread about Conventional Fighters being bomb carriers only, and started wondering)

monbvol · « **Reply #558 on:** 19 October 2018, 20:21:38 »

There are laser guided bombs in the rules already and I am pretty sure you can also put laser guided arrow 4 on as ordinance.

monbvol · « **Reply #559 on:** 30 October 2018, 18:01:29 »

Okay having a bit of trouble finding mech variants that actually change design quirks between variants to help me base my technicianing in/out design quirks around.

Also unless I'm missing some factor I have confirmed MekHQ does vastly over calculate how much time is required to refit a mech to a different variant.

I come up with 1890 minute to take a 6R Wolverine to a 6M while MekHQ says 5505 minutes.

120 minutes to replace the AC-5 with a Large Laser
120 minutes to install a new Medium Laser
90 minutes to add armor
120 minutes to remove the AC-5 ammo
180 minutes to add 2 heatsinks

630 minutes * 3 for a class D refit= 1890 minutes total.

I'll definately have to see if I'm missing something or if MekHQ is overcharging time.

idea weenie · « **Reply #560 on:** 02 November 2018, 20:40:41 »

One idea I saw in another game was that some weapons could keep up to 1 ton of ammo on-weapon. It saves a critical slot, but you still have to pay for mass. Since this could also get applied to quarter ton machine guns, I house-ruled it to be up to 1/4 the mass of the weapon, or 1 ton, whichever is less.

The advantage is that you have one less critical slot full of ammo that can go boom. The down side is if the weapon got hit, you have a chance of that location going boom. Also, if one weapon runs out of ammo (for whatever reason), ammo that is on-mount for another cannot be used to load it.

So assume you have a light Mech with 8 machine guns (2 per arm and 2 per side torso). CBT Machine guns are half a ton each, so they can each have up to 1/8 of a ton of ammo on-mount. So instead of needing a critical slots to store 1 ton of machine gun, the designer chooses that each machine gun will have 1/8 of a ton of ammo on-mount, or 25 shots per machine gun. Later in the game, the PC has been preferring to use the left arm machine guns and as a result they are out of ammo. Because the designer put all the ammo on-mount, that means the ammunition stored in the other machine guns cannot be used to load the machine guns in the left arm. Perhaps the designer should have 13 shots per gun on-mount, and left the rest of the ammo (96 shots) in a central ammo bin, risking the ammo critical hit?

This would be fairly useful for handheld weaponry, where you aren't going to be reloading the weapon during combat anyways

monbvol · « **Reply #561 on:** 04 November 2018, 00:32:04 »

I already have my own ideas for fixing weapons that need ammunition.

monbvol · « **Reply #562 on:** 09 November 2018, 19:30:28 »

I've still not found any variants that actually change design quirks.

At least nothing intrinsic to the chassis.

Prepare for a bit of crunch but I'm having trouble figuring out something better.

So my idea is adding/removing a design quirk is a class F refit with an extra penalty equal to the point value of the design quirk and uses whichever time is greater between repairing the most logical item and replacing the most logical item. So adding Accurate Weapon to an AC-5 would have in AToW terms a -5(-4 for class F and -1 for a 1 point design quirk) roll modifier and since the weapon has 4+ critical slots and thus would take 250 minutes base repair time would have a total time of 1250 minutes.

Fail the roll by 5 or more and in the case of removing a quirk if a more severe version of the quirk exists(like poor cooling jacket can go to no cooling jacket) the unit gains that design quirk in place of the existing one. If no more severe version of the quirk exists or the most severe version is already on the unit/item then the player and GM should work together to choose an appropriate quirk as really there are just too many variables to cover reasonably. If trying to add a new quirk and the roll is failed by 5 or more if an opposing quirk exists then apply that quirk instead(accurate weapon-inaccurate weapon). Again if no opposing quirk exists the GM and player should work together to determine the new negative quirk to be applied to the unit.

If using the maintainance rules in strategic operations and failing the roll instead of degrading or damaging the unit a 1 point per margin of failure negative design quirk may be added instead. If no negative design quirks are available for the margin of failure these negative design quirk points can be banked by the GM until there are enough to apply a new negative quirk and until these points are used in this fashion there is an additional -1 roll modifier to all maintainance checks and instead of increasing unit quality when rolling a high enough margin of success a point is instead negated.

Daryk · « **Reply #563 on:** 09 November 2018, 19:45:15 »

I just looked back at Xotl's RATs, and that's definitely what I was thinking of with different variants having different quirks. The Wolverine is one example, as he specifically states the "Difficult to Maintain" quirk was based on the jump jets, so the Kurita variant doesn't have it.

monbvol · « **Reply #564 on:** 09 November 2018, 21:53:49 »

Per the Battlemech Manual the Wolverine does not have Difficult to Maintain listed in the official listing anywhere for design quirks.

Daryk · « **Reply #565 on:** 09 November 2018, 22:08:26 »

I suppose they didn't use his RATs as the basis for the BMM. He mentions a few other 'mechs with quirks differing across variants, but not many.

monbvol · « **Reply #566 on:** 09 November 2018, 23:06:38 »

Yeah and what is worse is I think I do have to reject his efforts for the sake of simplicity.

Daryk · « **Reply #567 on:** 10 November 2018, 04:37:43 »

It's not simple, but I'd be inclined to leave in some wiggle room for reasonably related quirks (e.g., Improved Communications and Cramped Cockpit).

monbvol · « **Reply #568 on:** 10 November 2018, 11:35:22 »

*nod*

I don't entirely disagree but the only alternative I can see to my first draft there is to get even more detailed, to establish for people the kind or quirk relationships you suggest(rather than leave it up to the GM and player to decide for themselves since most don't actually have opposites), and quite likely having to do some extensive data mining.

monbvol · « **Reply #569 on:** 16 November 2018, 23:28:45 »

I have to be honest I feel like I'm forgetting some bit of house rules I was working on previously but am not sure what it is as Design Quirk as much as I'm still not happy with where I've left it I still don't see much more I can do with it without turning it into a far more convoluted and complicated mess.

So I'll have to clean that up to integrate into my house rules and besides maybe figuring out how to finish up all the stage 3 revisions so I can adjust what fields go with each school in a more sane and sensible manner without losing what little is left of my mind I think everything is actually in a finished state, at least until I start putting this stuff through some actual play testing.