Author Topic: Monbvol's House rule emporium (Read 101459 times)

Daryk · « **Reply #510 on:** 30 June 2018, 22:26:12 »

Now I just have to figure out how to play in one of your games... :)

monbvol · « **Reply #511 on:** 23 July 2018, 13:49:56 »

Been thinking about unit qualification, especially in regards to how I want to handle the gunnery skills.

As I have them it is probably a little too easy to put a vehicle gunner or asf pilot in a mech and not have an issue.

Debating between rolling the skills back to as written or adding a new trait.

Daryk · « **Reply #512 on:** 23 July 2018, 18:52:07 »

I think that would depend on how many levels of a skill you let people buy at once. A vehicle or aerospace gunner will have the right attributes, but unless they can buy three levels all at once (four, if you count zero as a level), they're going to have a problem.

monbvol · « **Reply #513 on:** 23 July 2018, 21:42:28 »

It is my biggest current debate.

How I have it currently as an example a veteran MechWarrior could have Gunnery/Ballistic 5 and if you put him at the firing controls of a Dropship's ballistic weapon bay he'd still be Gunnery/Ballistic 5.

One of my house rules though is to require a character special ability before they get the link attribute modifiers to skill rolls, thus making skills more important to invest in and since a character is limited to max edge(total number not value) it does force some interesting choices, at least to me. Though I do worry that approach might make attributes a bit too low value, especially for the somewhat less useful attributes.

So three ideas are presenting themselves to remedy my skilled but out of their element approach.

1. Keep my skill change but add a new trait called Unit Qualification. Without it apply the -4 of untrained but you get skill rank and skill TN instead of two attribute check and it's hefty TN. Tempted to extend this to piloting different models(but not variants) of units too so that players might be a bit less able to jump into a brand new mech/asf/vehicle and be good to go. For Gunnery I'm thinking add additional penalties if it is a different unit type. Give each character one free Unit Qualification per appropriate field. 100 XP trait.

2. Revert to rules as written.

3. Revert but also add unit qualification as a new trait.

Daryk · « **Reply #514 on:** 24 July 2018, 03:51:51 »

I think #3 might be the best option. RAW don't allow link modifiers, so a trait to add them would make sense.

monbvol · « **Reply #515 on:** 24 July 2018, 11:55:40 »

When I say I removed link attribute modifiers I meant all skills, not just piloting and gunnery.

I already have new character special abilities to add them back in.

The way I am envisioning Unit Qualification as a new trait is that if a character who was trained in the family's old 4g hunchback but tries to hop into a new 3r crusader they will take the -4 to piloting and gunnery.

The main thing I am debating on it is that even at 100 Xp it feels too expensive for how quickly characters in fluff can change rides.

Certainly a lot for me to consider.

Daryk · « **Reply #516 on:** 24 July 2018, 18:45:06 »

Ah, I see what you mean.., yeah, that's a much harder decision... :-\

monbvol · « **Reply #517 on:** 24 July 2018, 19:32:46 »

*nod*

Part of why I like my Gunnery/Ballistic, Gunnery/Energy, Gunnery/Missile approach is that it is easier to take someone who already knows how to shoot and stick them at pretty much any weapons station and they'll be able to cope fairly well, especially as to me it is more important how the weapon flies/delivers it's damage than what it is mounted on for what makes the real difference, while it also lets you create a character who's entire service career/training has been with a 4G Hunchback(just as an example) in that they'd be really terrible at using missiles but not so much Ballistics and Energy weapons. And using my Unit Qualification idea I'd not apply a penalty if they found themselves at the controls of a 4J but because they would have such a low Gunnery/Missile it'd still be a bad fit.

Still either way Unit Qualification does feel like it needs a lot more work to be fair and not overly expensive to overcome.

monbvol · « **Reply #518 on:** 08 August 2018, 17:13:41 »

I think I've figured it out.

The solution is to further refine the skills themselves rather than add any new traits.

What I'm thinking it will look like is something like this:

Air Gunnery/Ballistic
Air Gunnery/Energy
Air Gunnery/Missile

Ground Gunnery/Ballistic
Ground Gunnery/Energy
Ground Gunnery/Missile

Space Gunnery/Ballistic
Space Gunnery/Energy
Space Gunnery/Missile

If I apply all this realistically it will require ASF pilots to have both Air and Space while LAM pilots would need all three. Despite all the XP this could potentially chew up I'm finding myself not overly bothered by taking a more realistic approach.

Pretty major update inbound then.

Daryk · « **Reply #519 on:** 08 August 2018, 18:01:24 »

Nice solution... I also think it'll work just fine despite the potentially high XP costs.

monbvol · « **Reply #520 on:** 08 August 2018, 19:44:13 »

*nod*

I'll admit it does make me inclined to make a change to the piloting skills to where an ASF pilot would need two separate skills depending on where they are and thus LAM pilots needing three all said and done.

Of course I've stopped myself from making a lot of piloting skill changes because if I went realistic for those too it'd make ensuring pilots/drivers could control what they were assigned quite the task but it is something I've long wanted to do.

Daryk · « **Reply #521 on:** 08 August 2018, 19:48:01 »

I don't think it's a bad idea to do it to piloting too... LAMs are most useful in atmosphere anyway, so they don't HAVE to be flown in space.

monbvol · « **Reply #522 on:** 08 August 2018, 21:50:59 »

Another side benefit I forgot to mention is I can actually apply some sanity to the skills in changing their link attributes. For instance Intelligence seems a lot more important than Dexterity or Reflexes in space combat where more often than not the only way you actually see someone something has gone terribly wrong thus making it more important to be able to read sensor displays and make predictive calculations about where your target is going to be by the time the projectile/beam gets there.

The only thing stopping me is I really do not want to have to figure out a way to redo the unit assignment/RATs, especially doing it in such a way that a character doesn't get an effectively free but limited amount of Custom Vehicle.

Still I can't help but start to spitball some ideas.

Driving/Conventional Naval
Driving/Hovercraft
Driving/Hydrofoil
Driving/Tracked
Driving/Wheeled
Piloting/Aircraft
Piloting/Mech
Piloting/Spacecraft
Piloting/Spheroid(Atmospheric)
Piloting/VTOL

I thought about branching off Submarine due to how they have to deal with water in all three dimensions and thermals, maybe I will.

Likewise thought about branching Mech into Biped and Quad but fluff seems to indicate that isn't too much of a problem for mechwarriors to switch between.

Though I feel like I'm missing a motive type that shouldn't/couldn't be lumped in with one of the others already listed.

Daryk · « **Reply #523 on:** 09 August 2018, 03:35:35 »

WiGE?

monbvol · « **Reply #524 on:** 09 August 2018, 09:49:33 »

Hmmm... Not sure if it is different enough from Aircraft but I'll see what I can find.

monbvol · « **Reply #525 on:** 10 August 2018, 23:40:15 »

Having thought about it if I did make such a revision I'd probably show the small mercy of allowing Piloting/Aircraft to be able to handle WiGE rather than split it off as a separate skill.

Also thinking I probably could combine Driving/Wheeled and Driving/Tracked into Driving/Ground.

If I can think of a good way to re-work the fields for stage 3 I don't think I'll be able to stop myself anymore. :D

Daryk · « **Reply #526 on:** 11 August 2018, 01:08:01 »

Sounds reasonable... btw, when you say "Spheroid (Atmosphere)", do you mean Spacecraft? It seems odd to make landing any harder than it already is...

monbvol · « **Reply #527 on:** 11 August 2018, 01:51:25 »

The trouble is when I think about it I can't help but see flying a Spheroid(Small Craft or Dropship) would be very different inside an atmosphere than outside it.

Aerodynes(again Small Craft or Dropship) I would see using Piloting/Aircraft in atmosphere.

ASFs, Aerodynes, and Spheroids would use Piloting/Spacecraft in space since Battletech does use a physics based model, or at least tries to I should say.

To compensate I'd take a two prong approach of probably making it easier under non-combat conditions,possibly in general, and probably would advise that a player invest more in the atmospheric skill than the space skill since space is big and consequently less important to have really good skills for.

Daryk · « **Reply #528 on:** 11 August 2018, 02:06:07 »

Makes sense... perhaps leave the existing penalties in place if using Piloting/Spacecraft, and remove some of them when using the "proper" skill?

monbvol · « **Reply #529 on:** 11 August 2018, 09:16:44 »

*nod*

There are certain things about Battletech that do just seem overly difficult and to a certain extent I do know that is to try and create challenges for even elite crews on a 2d6 curve.

monbvol · « **Reply #530 on:** 14 August 2018, 00:03:40 »

Been giving how to revise the fields a lot of thought. If I want to stay with my revision of only 5 skills per field I just need to add additional fields that include the new additional gunnery and piloting skills. I'm certainly leaning towards this as the ideal solution as it makes it a lot easier to reflect a properly trained LAM pilot.

It kind of makes for a rougher situation for an actual ASF pilot or Dropship pilots as it now takes multiple fields to get them ready to do their jobs but I'm not overly bothered by this as there is at least one Dropship class that can't even go into atmosphere and some of the things we're told happen as routine trade can only possibly work if there are huge numbers of Dropships that never enter atmosphere once they get to space.

monbvol · « **Reply #531 on:** 20 August 2018, 23:42:10 »

Having found myself working 10 hour days for a bit of temporary work does make it a bit tough to update the stage 3 fields for my new paradigm. Might be a while before I can properly get this sorted out.

Daryk · « **Reply #532 on:** 21 August 2018, 03:51:28 »

No worries... I'm still settling in to the new house and my new job. I'll be here whenever you're able to get back to it... :thumbsup:

monbvol · « **Reply #533 on:** 24 August 2018, 23:15:58 »

I decided to leave Driving/Tracked and Driving/Wheeled split because it let me have enough fields on my spreadsheet that it didn't look off by having a partial row of fields.

I was able to mostly adjust existing fields but I do feel like I may still be missing some skills here or there.

With that in mind I would appreciate another set of eyes looking it over:link

I do already suspect just to support some of the multi-crew, especially the non-space larger unit types and infantry field guns/artillery, properly I may have to adjust/add some more fields.

Daryk · « **Reply #534 on:** 25 August 2018, 05:52:11 »

After a quick skim, I see:

Neither Pilot/Exoskeleton nor Pilot/Battle Armor include piloting
Staff Officer should have Computers vice Sensor Operations
Radioman should have Computers and/or Sensor Operations instead of one or both languages
I think Ship's Crew is a little off with two "Technician/Any" skills. That's more like an "engineering crew" field.
I think one of the "Science/Any" for Forensic Specialist should be "Tracking/Any"
I think "Covert Operations" should have a Language vice Tracking
Technician/Civilian and /Military seem like they should have at least one "Technician/Any"
I think Zero-G Operations would be more appropriate for a JumpShip Pilot than "Science/Math"
The Lawyer field should replace "Language" with either Interest/Law or Art/Writing
The "Communications" field appears to be trying to be two things at once. One is a technician (as in the prerequisite for HPG tech), and the other is what Communications major would be at college. The two skill sets are very different, and should be different fields.

Hope that helps!

monbvol · « **Reply #535 on:** 25 August 2018, 12:29:45 »

As far as the Piloting/Exoskeleton(or Battlearmor) I was just having too much trouble making those stand alone skills and be meaningful at the same time as most checks that I could assign to those skills I could have another skill handle.
So I've excised that particular skill until I can figure out a way to make it more meaningful without having to get too bogged down.

I had a reason why I gave the Staff Officer Sensor Operations over Computers at one point but I'll be damned if I can remember it now so I think I can agree to that revision.

Radioman I gave two languages largely because I wanted to add more variety/flavor by making it a bit more clear not everyone would speak the same languages, especially in battle situations. Still I take your point that it might be a bit much but I do see the basic Radioman more as the grunt with the other PBIs who has the larger more capable communication set so Computers and Sensor Operations feel a bit odd to me as possible replacements. If I can think of a better replacement I'll slip it in for one of the Language skills.

Ship's Crew I largely lifted from AToW with little modification. All I did was replace the existing Gunnery skill with another Technician skill.

Forensic Specialist you present a good conundrum on. This is largely meant to reflect a Crime Scene Investigator type person so I can see them needing to be able to follow tracks but at the same time I also know they do need to have a fair amount of cross discipline Science. Since they do require Scientist as a foundation I think I'll swap in Tracking.

Covert Operations is a bit of an oops in what skills I pruned off when taking it down to 5 from AToW's and yeah a Language skill makes more sense than a Tracking skill.

Technician/Civilian and Technician/Mech are lifted straight from AToW without modification. Technician/Mech does require either Technician/Civilian or Technician/Military so it should be fine as is. Technician/Civilian since it does seem to be a foundation to build off I'm not bothered by it not having a Technician/Any.

Jumpship pilot already gets Zero-G Operations from their foundation field so I figured the Science/Math would be a good way for them to have a way to calculate jump points in situations where the computer that normally does this for them is unavailable. But I do see something of an opportunity here anyway as Basic Training(Naval) should also be a way to get to this field.

Lawyer I do see a potential oversight there as General Studies does not seem to have an Art skill of any sort but does have an Interest/Any that can be put into Interest/Law. Best way I can think to handle that is to drop Perception from General Studies and add an Art/Any. Meanwhile Legal Assistant(the other foundation field that lets you become a Lawyer) has both so no issue there.

All I did(versus AToW) for the Communications field is drop the Sensor Operations and what is left does look like a Communications Major in college more than an HPG Tech.

I've also identified that I probably do need to add a more dedicated Gunner field for Ground and Air units that require them and I probably should put together a field for Infantry Field Artillery/Guns.

Once I figure those out another spreadsheet update should be going up shortly.

Daryk · « **Reply #536 on:** 25 August 2018, 12:39:22 »

Nice summary... In that context, it looks to me like Radioman and Communications are the two fields the original "Communications" was trying to be. Might be something to consider there...

monbvol · « **Reply #537 on:** 25 August 2018, 13:07:05 »

*nod*

The way AToW had Communications originally was a bit weird. Not sure why that field needed Sensor Operations.

Radioman I pulled a Language for the Running skill because Battletech PBIs as AToW has them are actually incredibly slow, to the point of they can't actually cover 30 meters of good open ground in ten seconds.

So the two should be a bit clearer as separate paths now.

Added the mentioned fields.

Field Gunner since I don't remember there being a motive type restriction on Mechanized Infantry towing guns I gave them the three Driving skills to cover that and the two Ground Gunnery skills to cover Arrow 4, tube artillery, and the field guns.

Air and Surface Gunner were likewise pretty straight forward. The three relevant Gunnery skills, Sensor Operations, and a Technician/Any so they can help keep their weapons in good working order.

Still feel like I might have some orphaned skills that have no fields or that I might need to have some more fields but that is something I suspect I'll always feel.

Updated spreadsheet is at the same link as before.

My appreciation for once again providing valuable feedback.

Daryk · « **Reply #538 on:** 25 August 2018, 13:37:23 »

My pleasure! It's going to be a bit until I can look over the revised spreadsheet, but I'll try to get to it today.

Daryk · « **Reply #539 on:** 25 August 2018, 14:56:15 »

One general comment: "Prerequisite" is missing an "e" throughout the spreadsheet.

Hmm, here's a random thought: Interrogation for Lawyers (maybe instead of Language)?

A second random thought: In the absence of Piloting/Exoskeleton (or /Battlesuit), Acrobatics/Free Fall? It covers jump packs and such...

I figured out what was bugging me about Technician/Civilian... I think the Technician/Nuclear should be Technician/Any. That implies fusion engines are rather less common than having every ITT college graduate in human space knowing how they work...

I'm thinking your point about Running should apply to the Infantry field too. Perhaps replace Comms/Conventional (since that's more an NCO/Officer function)?

Also, I think Comms Officer and Sensor Officer should be "Technicians" instead. No commission required. Further, I think Comms/HPG being in that field would be era dependent...