NEWS

[SR5] House Rules

  • 416 Replies
  • 264090 Views

Erling

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 170
« Reply #210 on: <04-22-14/1315:42> »
I dunno, in SR4 this houserule was a basic rule (to be specific, only Reaction was applicable unless defending character used Full Defense), and it worked fine. In SR3 things were even more harsh, and it was OK too.
Police bank assault, firefight in a supermarket? Apply blind fire and barrier modificators and there will be balance (and no unrealistic accuracy).

Quote
So they're weaklings
AFAIR, level 3 skill is considered competent in SR5 rulebook. They are not weakings, they are simply not veteran soldiers of cyberpowered superhumans. If you say that adequate chance to hit begins at 12 dice, then you have to admit that rules are matched for playing proficient fighters, because character wich is not a proficient fighter won't get an adequate chance.
« Last Edit: <04-22-14/1321:24> by Erling »
SR1++SR2++SR3+++SR4+SR5+h++IE-W++hk++sa++++sh+hm--m-gm+M-P

Agonar

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
« Reply #211 on: <05-06-14/1953:29> »
My house rules for Shadowrun Addiction, to take into effect multiple uses, and frequency of use.  Now, before I go into this, the reason was because there were several parts of the current Addiction rules that didn't make sense, or seemed way too complicated.  Taking into account average die rolls, someone who drinks 1 Soykaf per week will eventually hit Burnout and fall into a coma.  Yes, as Michael (who did the math) pointed out.
If you drink Soykaf ALL the time, you'd be rolling once every 10 weeks. Let's assume Soykaf is Psysiological, so Body+Willpower to resist, that's 6 dice for normal people. 2/3 chance to succeed, so once every 30 weeks you'd fail. So you'd have to be dosing on Soykaf for 2.5 years average in a row without ever taking a break to start hitting Burnout. If you're a runner with decent stats, it's 90%, so 100 weeks per failed test. That's 8 years average of constant Soykaf drinking before Burnout.
It would take years, but the Soykaf drinker will eventually hit 0 in some stats, and that just doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Another reason I wanted to come up with something slightly different, is because in the current rules, a person who takes kamikaze once per hour is just as likely to get addicted as someone who takes it once per week.  Again, to me, this just didn't seem right.  It didn't take into account binge users, and I wanted to do something to make it more risky for the frequent users, over the casual users.

So, here goes.

Quote
1.  When you roll your addiction test, you aren't trying to beat a threshold, but an opposed test (opposed test is an amount of dice = Threshold).  This makes it a little easier to resist the first use, I know, but the presumption is that users aren't going to use just once, and it gets more difficult, as seen below.
  1a. To simplify this process, the GM can allow for "Bought" hits on both sides, unless both sides have enough dice to buy the same number of Hits, then roll.  (Ultimately, addiction might not fit into everyone's game.  And partly, this is for those GMs that want to have something for those Players who took the addiction Negative Quality, but don't want to go overboard, and soon have every PC in the game addicted to something).

2.  Addiction Rating can be used to factor in the frequency in which the addiction test changes.  For Ratings 1-3, every additional use in the same day adds 1 die to the opposed roll.  For ratings 4-6, every additional use in the same week adds +1 die to the opposed roll.  And ratings 7-9, every additional use in a two week period adds +1 die to the opposed roll.
  2a.  Another way to calculate this, if you want a little more bookkeeping, is to use the Addiction Rating as the interval itself.  Something with an AR 1 would count additional uses per day, something with an AR 2 would count every 2 days, up to the big stuff counting for multiple uses within a 9 day period.  I, personally, would stick with the day/week/2 week, because it makes it easier to keep track of, in combination with 3 below.

3.  Every week you skip usage can reduce the opposed roll by 1 die.  Using the normal 2 week period for a roll, drugs with 1 die, that are skipped for the second week, are at 0 dice, so you are safe.  Or, if you want to require rolls at different intervals, you can.  Whatever the GM wants here.

4.  Under this system, you can force a roll when it is dramatically appropriate, assuming bought hits don't pass the test (see 1a).  Or, for the case of frequent users, you can require a roll, even if Bought Hits would normally pass the test.  Ultimately, this system allows for binge users to have a tougher time resisting addiction, but it doesn't severely hurt very casual users, specially causal users of things like soycaf.

The rolls are the same, Logic + Willpower for psychological, and Body + Willpower for physiological.

If you go with the rules as they are, someone with a soycaf addiction will eventually reach the burnout stage, and then start taking permanent stat reductions until they slip into a coma.  And, someone taking 10 doses of Kamikaze a day had no more trouble with addiction that someone who took 1 dose per week, and I wanted to make it harder for the binge users.

So, here's an example of how this works.

Character has a Body 3, Willpower 3, and Logic 2.  Let's say She takes some Cram, because she wants a combat Edge.  If the GM wants an immediate roll, she would roll 5 dice (psychological) vs Cram's 3 dice.  Using Bought Hits, she has 1 Hit, Cram has 0, so she is not addicted.  Since Cram's AR is 4, as long as she doesn't take another dose within the same week, she should never really have to worry about addiction.  But, if she takes another dose within a week, The opposed dice test would now roll 4 dice, enough to buy a Hit, so the GM should require an actual roll next time, Her 5 vs Cram's 4, instead of allowing the buying of Hits.

Now, if you want to keep a Threshold, instead of opposed Roll, you can.  This system allows for that, and still makes it difficult for multiple uses in an interval, just add to the threshold, instead of the opposed die roll.

Anyway.  If you want to use it, by all means.  If you have ideas to keep it effective, but simplify it a little more, I would like to hear it. 
GM of the Relative Dimension, Actual Play Podcast
www.relativedimension.com

fenrir4life

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 27
« Reply #212 on: <05-18-14/0000:19> »
So, I've read the long, numerous,  and occasionally vitriolic threads regarding the state of brawler adepts in 5e, and now that it's clear that Martial Arts in 5e have been toned done somewhat from their (admittedly hilarious) 4th edition glory, I have the following suggestion to fix their damage output problem(and yes, I do believe they have a problem): Keep Critical Strike at the new, .5 pp cost, but remove the "1 rank per weapon type" cap.  I'd say "no more than half/a third your Magic, rounded up".
This may necessitate splitting Critical Strike between unarmed and armed, since the armed version does _not_ need multiple ranks.

Tyrhaynes

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 9
« Reply #213 on: <06-12-14/0113:07> »
My blog for Shadowrun and Scion house rules

http://scionhouserules.wordpress.com/

My latest post: Motivation of this is to limit the really weak metamagics by linking them together. These are Attunement Metamagic Qualities that any Initiate with Attunement can purchase. I am slowly working on getting all the metamagics finished, organized, and balanced. Probably get it done when the new magic book comes out.

http://scionhouserules.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/shadowrun-overhaul-magic-attunement-metamagic-qualities/

Collection of my finished Shadowrun Overhaul rules:

http://scionhouserules.wordpress.com/compendium/


Tyrhaynes

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 9
« Reply #215 on: <06-22-14/1725:44> »

Tombstone

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 4
« Reply #216 on: <06-23-14/1309:03> »
After taking a good hard look at Direct Damage Spells i decided to buff them up. I know how OP they were in the good old days, but in SR5, they dont seem to be worth the trouble AT ALL. There is virtually no situation in which an Indirect Combat Spell wouldnt be better, and even worse, there is no real incentive to use them at high Forcelevel at all.

So: Half the Value of the Force Level is the basic damage, +the Successes. For example a Force 8 Manabolt would start at 4 Damage+Dice.

What do you think, too OP?

RHat

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6317
« Reply #217 on: <06-24-14/0639:59> »
Direct Combat spells actually have a pretty valuable function - compared to other options, they're damn effective against hardened or difficult to hit targets.

And I do have concerns - though I haven't run the numbers just yet - that bring in that base damage would, in combination with the single-roll, single contributor defense (compared to the dual roll, multi-contributor defense for indirect) could be imbalanced.
"Speech"
Thoughts
Matrix <<Text>> "Speech"
Spirits and Sprites

Tombstone

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 4
« Reply #218 on: <06-24-14/1111:05> »
Yeah i know what you mean. On the other hand, it just feels WRONG that a Force 12 Stunbolt in all likelyhood wont even knock out a Street Bum. (Unless you have ridicolously high stats/Foci/stuff).

Since i have no munchkins in my group who wring out every last bit of effectiveness, i guess ill just give that rule a tentative try and see how/if it works.


RHat

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6317
« Reply #220 on: <06-25-14/0051:37> »
Yeah i know what you mean. On the other hand, it just feels WRONG that a Force 12 Stunbolt in all likelyhood wont even knock out a Street Bum. (Unless you have ridicolously high stats/Foci/stuff).

Since i have no munchkins in my group who wring out every last bit of effectiveness, i guess ill just give that rule a tentative try and see how/if it works.

Give me a day or two, I'll get some numbers together for you when I'm not so busy (probably for a few different power levels along both sides of things).
"Speech"
Thoughts
Matrix <<Text>> "Speech"
Spirits and Sprites

Tombstone

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 4
« Reply #221 on: <06-25-14/0712:12> »
@Tyrhaines: Thanks a bunch, that is a very solid suggestion.

@Rhat: Id appreciate that, i am pretty curious myself how those numbers stack up.

Agonar

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
« Reply #222 on: <06-28-14/0130:51> »
Yeah i know what you mean. On the other hand, it just feels WRONG that a Force 12 Stunbolt in all likelyhood wont even knock out a Street Bum. (Unless you have ridicolously high stats/Foci/stuff).

Since i have no munchkins in my group who wring out every last bit of effectiveness, i guess ill just give that rule a tentative try and see how/if it works.

I have a Mage in my group that uses stunbolt to very high success.  He rarely casts a F12 though.  He'll go with a much lower Force, and then just use reagents to set the limit, and Edge to reroll Failures.  And he can fairly reliably knock out that street bum.  Using stunball with the same tactics makes him dangerous to a large number of low willpower targets.

Just because Direct spells aren't as overpowered as they were in SR4, doesn't make them weak in sr5.  It's all about how you use them, who you target with them, and the amount of Reagents to use to mess with the limit when casting.
GM of the Relative Dimension, Actual Play Podcast
www.relativedimension.com

voydangel

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 537
  • SR GM since 1990. Damn I'm old.
« Reply #223 on: <07-05-14/0503:35> »
The only serious issues we've found so far with 5e is related to spirits and a few spells. Spells are easy to deal with - just go with GM approval, etc. but the spirit rules... eek. We have been tweaking with them rather a lot trying to get them to not feel too OP. We've tried lots of different things, some have been ok, others not so much. But I think we have a winner here now. Doing theory crafting after each session to debrief each other as to whether we think things are still OP or too hard or what have you.

Starting our next session, the spirit rules we are going to be running with (which we all agreed upon) are as follows:

1. When summoning a spirit, you must resist Drain equal to the number of hits the spirit scores on its "summon resistance" roll (vs. your magic + Summoning) times 3 (instead of x2).
2. Drain caused by summon (or attempting to summon) spirits is always Stun damage regardless of the spirits force compared to your Magic. It can overflow and become physical as normal.
3. When gaining hardened armor from being materialized, spirits only gain their force times 1.5 in hardened Armor (instead of x2). All other rules for hardened armor remain unchanged.

What do you guys think? Any theory crafting/thoughts ?
My tips for new GM's
Unless it is coming from an official source, RAI = "Rules As Imagined."
SR1+SR2+SR3++SR4++SR5+++h+b+++B+D382UBIE-RN---DSF-W+m+(o++)gm+MP

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #224 on: <07-05-14/0655:40> »
Putting aside the many non-houserule methods to counter spirits, I don't get the second houserule: won't that just encourage oversummoning, since you can't die from it and magicians will typically have a bigger Stun track than Physical track?