Author Topic: Monbvol's House rule emporium (Read 94854 times)

monbvol · « **Reply #90 on:** 15 January 2012, 13:29:03 »

All right I think I may need feed back on my mercenary unit construction rules.

I think I've covered everything. I want transport and large formations to take A LOT of backing to achieve. I did the absolute value of Reputation because some people that were known for doing some pretty horrible things were able to attract an impressive number of followers. Indeed it seems more important to be famous rather than what you are famous for. The rules are intended to use all of my house rules, including the revised traits. I included that Size modifier to the Skill Field Average as a way to indicate that if you do get too big you do tend to let people in that are of lower quality. I really like the increasing cost for raising the Skill Field average as well. Makes it really hard to get a super elite unit. Though that may make for an interesting situation for how to handle state commands that decide to go mercenary since a lot of that work was taken care of by government vetting and training. I'll have to think on that some.

Anyway my *dead link removed*

monbvol · « **Reply #91 on:** 21 January 2012, 12:57:28 »

Got to thinking, I know a dangerous thing, and decided that rather than try to get overly complex the advantages of being a state command are balanced out by the fact that you don't always get to take everything or everyone with you and it isn't always up to the ringleaders.

Other thought I had was about the Artillery skill. I got to thinking about what it does, how it works and I realized all the non-gunnery aspects of it could be handled by other skills, and indeed seem more appropriate to other skills. That lead me to the thought of wouldn't the gunnery aspect then be better covered by the existing gunnery skills. The only thing that tripped me up was for some PBIs in trucks towing around artillery pieces then it hit me. I could just use the Support Weapons skill instead. So I'm more than happy to eliminate the Artillery skill.

monbvol · « **Reply #92 on:** 21 January 2012, 22:43:18 »

And all my links are dead. Huzzah.

Well I guess I need to look for another free file hosting site that is not having legal difficulties so I can easily share my work with others.

BirdofPrey · « **Reply #93 on:** 22 January 2012, 08:18:04 »

Why do you want to eliminate the artillery skill? Personally, my inclination would be to make it a generic indirect fire skill and use it for both firing and spotting for artillery, but also for LRMs firing indirectly.

monbvol · « **Reply #94 on:** 22 January 2012, 10:06:57 »

Mostly because it is redundant and I like removing redundant skills. As it is already Gunnery can handle all indirect functions. So can Support Weapons for PBI gear. Plus like I said in my previous post it seems more appropriate to handle just about every function it does provide with another skill.

Spotting- Perception to actually see anything

Calling in artillery- Seems to me this would be more appropriate as a Navigation/Ground check to recognize the right coordinates. Then a Cryptography check to make sure the coordinates are encrypted/decrypted correctly. Never send anything in the clear unless it is part of your plan.

monbvol · « **Reply #95 on:** 27 January 2012, 11:51:14 »

With the legal troubles Megaupload is currently experiencing I figured I better take some time to go ahead and remove all my now dead links. I think I've got them all. If not my apologies. As such if you see one feel free to let me know and I'll take care of it.

monbvol · « **Reply #96 on:** 01 February 2012, 13:18:16 »

Well after thinking about it I have decided to keep Artillery around. I'm still kind of debating it. For now though it's here to stay.

My newest project though has been to work out new Stage 3 Modules because frankly I think this is another area where AToW has dropped the ball somewhat. I understand the balance reasons. I played 3ed and made use of the supplements and saw how not all academies and universities were created equal. The problem I think is they went too far the other way. Now they're all the same and lacking character. With the XP system of AToW now you can have inequality between the programs but still have them balance by costing the player the appropriate amount.

The base implication is that 10 fields is the maximum you can get since you can go to one Civilian, one Police/Intelligence, and one Military school for 9 fields with OCS being an exception to this normal limit. So instead of making a player have to jump through all those hoops and to add a bit of variety I've decided to write up some factional(my AU factions only, sorry but I want Catalyst to have some leeway tot take this idea and run with it without it getting needlessly complicated) Stage 3 Modules and use a slightly different approach. Instead of all the complicated jumping back and forth I'm allowing any school to train up to 10 fields. Where I'm debating this approach is in time taken. I'm seriously considering flat amount of time for each field. For example each field takes 1 year. I'm also considering quality of training. Rapid courses take 0.5 years but only provide 20 per skill with 4 rebate. Also on my mind is how to divide up the XP because I'm seriously considering borrowing a bit from 2ed and having uneven XP distribution. Like 50XP to one skill, 30 XP to two, and 20 XP to the last 2 since I've reworked all the fields to five skills the total expenditure and rebate remains the same but gives some variety. I'm also considering diminishing returns on having more fields. I'm thinking anything beyond 4 fields should be about right for the balancing point.

Right now I'm strongly considering the uneven distribution combined with the quality of training variation as my standard. I'll play with the numbers a bit but I think I'm pretty close to where I would like to be.

A lot on my mind but I think the end result will be worth it.

monbvol · « **Reply #97 on:** 07 February 2012, 02:35:09 »

I suppose an update is somewhat in order.

I have decided on how to handle the training issue. Instead of being limited to certain numbers of field selections per school I've decided to use my quality of training idea where the player can devote a certain amount of time to each field and let the field prereqs sort themselves out. For how much you get I've decided there will be two variations. Version 1 you get a set amount of XP for each skill. Version 2 you get a lump sum that you can distribute any way you like. Either version as long as every skill in the field is at a minimum of +0 when you are done with character creation it works out the same for total XP spent and rebate since I've reworked the fields to 5 skills each. But here is how I intend to handle it.

Rapid Courses 0.25 years 100 XP total 20/20/20/20/20 20 XP Rebate
Basic Courses 0.50 years 150 XP total 50/30/30/20/20 30 XP Rebate
Advanced Courses 1.00 years 200 XP total 80/50/30/20/20 40 XP Rebate
Specialist Courses 2.00 years 300 XP total 120/80/50/30/20 60 XP Rebate

Same limit of 10 fields that is implied in A Time of War and the diminishing return on investment versus time spent should keep it in check fairly nicely.

Another thing I have started looking at is the Encumbered movement modifiers. Not so much that I want to change anything but I have been looking at putting together Infantry Combat Kits. With movement as penalized as it is for an Encumbered character I decided to explore this a bit. With how fast the weight seems to add up I have thought about formalizing a Strength minimum of 4 on the Infantry field. Currently it has no minimums and Basic has no Strength requirement. On the one hand it is a bit redundant because to pack any decent amount of gear(primary fire arm, enough ammo/power packs for at least 60 seconds of sustained combat, armor, grenades/any other sort of explosives) demands at least 3 Strength but I doubt any player in their right mind needs bashed over their head in this manner if they are generating an Infantry soldier. Still it might be wise to enforce some sort of minimum. While 3 is enough to get by if shopping smart without getting encumbered I'm thinking 4 might be more reasonable.

monbvol · « **Reply #98 on:** 10 February 2012, 23:29:23 »

Progress!

I still need to finish up the actual module portions but I have finished up two of my AU faction specific school's field lists.

Wow that sounds very confusing. What I mean is I know what fields my schools/academies for two of my factions will provide but I have yet to start working out trait requirements, attribute, skill, and trait assignments to make them actual modules.

Should get this stuff done pretty quickly.

I still need to find a better way to share all this stuff.

monbvol · « **Reply #99 on:** 13 February 2012, 11:42:19 »

I'm still looking at the infantry kit stuff a bit. I found something I never noticed before. No matter if the Support Weapon is encumbering or not it takes a complex action to deploy or pack up. Probably a fair compromise considering how much more effective AToW makes support weapons over standard versus what we have in Tech Manual and what it implies about Infantry even though this creates a disconnect by near as I can figure adding any Support Weapon to Infantry at all that Infantry unit becomes Total Warfare/Tech Manual Encumbered.

Another interesting bit I'm looking at is AP specialty ammo. I may have to see about a clarification on specialty ammunition in general but I have it stuck in my mind that any slug thrower can use the appropriate specialty ammo. As such it is theoretically possible to load AP ammo into a Bear Hunter Super Heavy and do horrible things.

For Marines I've been looking at the laser/energy small arms. I noticed that they all top out at 5E for their AP. The Marine Combat suit has 5 for it's E BAR rating. Then I remembered the layered armor rules and looked at the Ablative armors. 6 for the E BAR rating. Then I started looking at the burst ratings of the various laser small arms. Just because of how the burst fire rules actually work the best small arm energy weapon may well actually be the Mauser 960. The Clan and IS Pulse Laser Rifles can compete well enough to not make it the absolute best.

The final implication though?

Based on the weights and how everything works I am now seriously considering a Strength minimum of 6 for Infantry and Marines. Even splitting the weight evenly amongst a crew of 4 some of those support weapons I've been looking at would be so heavy that even though the weapon itself does not have the Encumbering trait it would still be so heavy as to weigh down the Infantry so much to cause them to be Encumbered anyway with anything less than a Strength of 6.

Ah the strange things that run through my head these days.

monbvol · « **Reply #100 on:** 14 February 2012, 17:26:28 »

Well I'm almost finished with the Stage 3 modules for my AU stuff. I just have one faction left and then I should go ahead and redo the generic AToW Stage 3 modules because there are a few changes there but not many and that is mostly because of how I've re-worked the fields.

While doing this I did realize with the way I want to handle things it basically makes OCS unneeded. Likewise with my AU I have no reason to keep the Solaris Internship module either.

Another interesting thought I had was basically get rid of the distinction between Stage 3 and Stage 4. What I mean is that I feel rather inclined to allow players to have their characters go back to school after working say a Civilian Job. So long as the 10 module and 10 field limit is observed I have no issues with something along these lines.

Next big thing I need to do is rework probably a total of 4 modules in Stage 1 and 2.

monbvol · « **Reply #101 on:** 18 February 2012, 13:59:44 »

Well this time I have something for all you Infantry haters out there.

Me and Liam's Ghost not long ago got talking about Infantry and their ability to do damage to Battlemechs. Short version is neither of us is really a fan of the idea that a Autorifle(and other assorted Small Arms) is as murderous against high BAR targets as it is.

So I got to thinking about how to handle this and today I came up with the easiest solution possible. Instead of rounding damage normally, always round down. This still allows an exceptionally lucky Autorifleman to do a point of damage against a Mech but being so much better off with a LAW or VLAW with an AP warhead that I like the implications. I'll have to look closer at the Support Weapons to make sure I haven't gone too far though.

monbvol · « **Reply #102 on:** 18 February 2012, 14:52:58 »

You know at first I thought it might be a problem but I'm not so sure I'm against the idea that only high end Support Weapons and Missiles can damage mechs. I do need to do something to the AP ratings of the Anti-Vehicle Ordinances but turning their AP up to a flat 10 and calling it good is starting to warm me to the idea of always rounding down.

skiltao · « **Reply #103 on:** 18 February 2012, 17:33:30 »

That's a really slick idea. :o

monbvol · « **Reply #104 on:** 18 February 2012, 19:23:12 »

Indeed.

I went and made a spreadsheet to help me see how the alternate methods I was considering actually worked, what kind of Margins of Success I would need under these methods and rounding down actually turns out to more neatly mesh with the AToW to TW conversion.

Heck it is small enough to attach.

The first section is how AToW currently handles Tactical Armor damage as a point of comparison. The first alteration I started thinking about was doubling the damage reduction for superior BAR. It actually goes a bit too far the other way I think.

Then I thought about why not give a bonus to the BAR for damage reduction and divisor. At first I thought a flat (BAR-AP)/3 round up bonus would be sufficient but it turned out not really be all that impressive so I added a flat +1 so that it would be 1+((BAR-AP)/3 round up) but that fell out of favor real fast as I realized it would add a lot more math than would be practical.

Then the always round down. It doesn't make it impossible for a lot of weapons that AToW frankly implied were even more effective than their Tech Manual stats said but it does move it to being a much more comfortable situation IMO.

monbvol · « **Reply #105 on:** 19 February 2012, 21:10:01 »

While going through the Stage 4 Modules to see which ones really need re-writing for my AU setting I actually discovered something interesting.

There are 2 repeatable Stage 4 Modules that actually give more XP when you repeat them than what they cost.

There are 2 that actually break even.

Hilarity may now ensue.

Maelwys · « **Reply #106 on:** 22 February 2012, 01:48:53 »

Its an interesting point about Infantry. Are you really sure you want to require a strength of 6 though?

It is sort of an interesting point though. I noticed the quirkiness when I was making a WoB Infantryman.

Did you take into consideration the Load-bearing equipment?

monbvol · « **Reply #107 on:** 22 February 2012, 02:26:16 »

The problem with the load bearing equipment is it counts as armor for the stacking armor rules and thus combining it with real armor makes Infantry automatically Encumbered.

Still though I do consider it likely anyone intentionally building an Infantry character will already have it in mind to have a high Strength so I'm still not sold on the idea of actually enforcing a minimum Strength but the implications AToW converted to TW/TM seems to make it does suggest 6 is the minimum even accounting for load bearing equipment. Otherwise some of the heavier Support Weapons even with their weight divided up evenly amongst the crew would automatically encumber them with anything less despite not having the Encumbering trait. Part of my resistance is also the idea that according to AToW it takes a Complex Action to Pack/Unpack a Support Weapon. This would mean any support weapon should be considered Encumbering anyway by TW/TM.

All things considered though it probably would be easier to House Rule that Load Bearing Gear is designed with the idea of being layered with Armor and thus not Encumbering in that way and Pack/Unpack is a one time a turn only Incidental Action and not bash players over the head with something that I consider likely to happen anyway without having to formalize it.

Maelwys · « **Reply #108 on:** 22 February 2012, 05:20:08 »

Quote from: monbvol on 22 February 2012, 02:26:16

The problem with the load bearing equipment is it counts as armor for the stacking armor rules and thus combining it with real armor makes Infantry automatically Encumbered.

Hmm, that's pretty sill, though I guess that is the rules, since Load-Bearing equipment does have an armor value (even for things like a Packframe).

I did stumble across something rather interesting, and I figured I'd run it by you.

Page 170 states under Encumbering Items "A character already encumbered by weight limit issues who in turn carries encumbering equipment raises his encumbrance factor by one level."

If they don't define "Encumbering" anywhere else, that seems to indicate that you're not automatically encumbered by an Encumbering weapon, you only take a penalty if you're encumbered already. So you can have Encumbering-rated equipment and not be considered encumbering (which is something I thought was the other way around).

Quote

All things considered though it probably would be easier to House Rule that Load Bearing Gear is designed with the idea of being layered with Armor and thus not Encumbering in that way and Pack/Unpack is a one time a turn only Incidental Action and not bash players over the head with something that I consider likely to happen anyway without having to formalize it.

I had a thought about simply allowing Load-bearing equipment to negate Encumbrance to a certain degree, rather than mock adding to the character's basic strength. What about a Vest giving a 1-2 degree discount? So if you had an Encumbering Load you'd be alright, but if you were very encumbered you'd only count as Encumbered?

monbvol · « **Reply #109 on:** 22 February 2012, 12:01:33 »

Yeah I saw that on page 170.

Part of the problem is some equipment does count as automatically Encumbering and stacking with Weight and Armor Encumbering.

monbvol · « **Reply #110 on:** 24 February 2012, 02:16:01 »

Another interesting tangent I'm starting to look into is Fire Fighters. I've got the Field Skills figured out.

Career/Fire Fighter for all the assorted stuff(jaws of life, safely hooking the hoses to hydrants, anything else I'm overlooking)
Climbing since you have to go up and down ladders a lot and being able to do so in a hurry would be a good idea.
Melee Weapons for the Fire Axe.
Perception for seeing through all the smoke and fire.
Support Weapons for the high pressure water systems.

Now I need to remember to grab my notes for my Noble fields. I came up with three fields to help give a Medieval feel with traditional education with a few concessions tossed in for modern times.

Counting these 4 I'm up to 25 new fields I have added to the existing list. Despite that I like the implications overall.

Maelwys · « **Reply #111 on:** 24 February 2012, 04:29:23 »

Quote from: monbvol on 22 February 2012, 12:01:33

Yeah I saw that on page 170.

Part of the problem is some equipment does count as automatically Encumbering and stacking with Weight and Armor Encumbering.

So what you're saying is its all a bit muddled and needs some sort of fix? :)

monbvol · « **Reply #112 on:** 24 February 2012, 10:38:43 »

Yup.

I am warming to the idea that Load Bearing Gear does not count as Armor for purposes of stacking. That alone goes a long way to actually making a lot of weapons a lot more mobile.

Counting only either Armor or Weapon for instances where both have the Encumbering trait is another interesting idea and I may look at that a bit closer.

Maelwys · « **Reply #113 on:** 24 February 2012, 14:30:17 »

Probably a good idea. Giving them N/A for armor values would make the gear useful (since at the moment its "I use Load-Bearing Equipment to keep from being encumbered by all my gear, but it encumbers me since I'm stacking armor.").

Of course, I suppose you could argue that you'd use it to keep from being encumbered by weight so you're not double encumbered by an Encumbering item, since you could make the argument that Encumbering Weapons only increase your Encumbrance when you're encumbered by weight, and not when encumbered by stacked armor..but that might be a bit...convoluted.

monbvol · « **Reply #114 on:** 24 February 2012, 18:33:25 »

Simpler is better and so far that's the best solution I've come up with that doesn't get overly convoluted.

Miroku2235 · « **Reply #115 on:** 26 February 2012, 20:35:05 »

In our games we roll initiative once per side. Whoever loses moves ALL their units before the winner does, and combat follows the same flow.

monbvol · « **Reply #116 on:** 26 February 2012, 22:09:25 »

That from what I understand is how AToW Initiative is actually supposed to work.

Pretty much the only thing we do different in our group is Tactics up to Leadership as the Initiative bonus. Works simply enough and is less confusing about how much of a bonus you get than what AToW lays out.

monbvol · « **Reply #117 on:** 01 March 2012, 13:14:04 »

Well looking at it further and yeah Initiative is a bit of a mess in AToW.

In some instances it does seem that if you win Initiative you can move and shoot first, a major advantage, and others the enemy moves first and you can respond accordingly, basically how Total Warfare does it.

I do like the idea of being able to get the drop on someone, especially in personal combat. I may keep with this model in AToW scale and think on it some.

Jackmc · « **Reply #118 on:** 01 March 2012, 15:51:15 »

Quote from: monbvol on 26 February 2012, 22:09:25

That from what I understand is how AToW Initiative is actually supposed to work.

1/3 right.

In ATOW there are three level of intit, and the GM choses one.

Individual: Everyone rolls off and then goes/resolves in that order. Anyone but the lowest roller can choose a "hold" action when their turn comes up (this is true for the other two levels of init also). They can then take their turn at anytime afterwards, even interupting someone else's action) up to the end of that turn. This is what you'd use to setup overwatch fire for example.

Squad: Similar to Individual but characters are grouped up into bunches of up to 4 with a single character serving as the 'squad leader." Squad leaders roll and then the squads move/resolve in that order. Squad leaders' Tactics And Leadership skills count as a bonus here (note that the Init rules overrule the wording of the Tactics skill in this which, as written, only convey the bonus at the "team" level of init)

Team: Everyone on one side is grouped together into a team, and only the team leader rolls for init. Like squad init, Leadeership and Tactics bonuses apply for the team leader. Unlike the the lower two levels of Init, elements from opposign temas alternate in taking/resolving their actions ala Battletech.

Personally I think their terminology is bassackawards as a fire"team" is smaller than a squad in real life.

-Jackmc

monbvol · « **Reply #119 on:** 01 March 2012, 16:27:14 »

Well I did do some more reading since then and frankly the whole thing is a bit of a needless mess.

The way Liam's Ghost does it is Tactics up to Leadership is applied as a bonus and then resolve personal scale in highest to lowest initiative and Tactical Combat getting the same bonus but being resolved ala Total Warfare.

I am rather likely to keep this method for my own games at this point as it does a fairly decent job of keeping the skills relevant without making them overpowering very quickly.