[martinchaen]

Having played a rigger in a campaign for a while, I find that I am seeing a lot of potential issues with the rules for drones.

WARNING:
This is not a short post, though I've tried to make it concise, and it contains numerous references to numbers and analyses performed by myself. The feedback I'm looking for is constructive criticism on the proposed changes, not discussions about other potential houserules; there are numerous other threads for this. I'd very much appreciate it if this thread could be dedicated to discussing the merits of the proposed changes only. Thank you for your cooperation.

With the above in mind, I have proposed several houserules to try to make drones a little more viable. Houserules 1 and 2 are supported by an in-depth analysis I performed of the survivability of the Renraku Manservant-3 drone after upgrading it with armor as per the Arsenal book for SR4A vehicle modifications, where I also looked at the maximum armor value restriction in that book of BOD * 3. These findings are summarized below. Calculations are done with mathematical averages (1 hit per 3 dice), and note that green boxes on the charts indicate no damage (automatic success as the modified DV does not exceed the modified AV as per current vehicle rules), while red boxes indicate outright killshots (DV after soak exceeds condition monitor):
Analysis of BOD3 drone with modified armor values vs common weapon types, standard condition monitors
Analysis of BOD3 drone with modified armor values vs common weapon types, modified condition monitors

Houserule 1: Armor Modifications for drones and vehicles
The first thing that struck me is that drones are horribly underarmored considering the damage values of most weapons. As the first of the above charts shows, a drone with BOD 3 stands almost no chance against every single weapon out there under the current rules, even if upgraded to AV 9. Combine this with the fact that drones have limited defense dice pools, and the chances of opponents scoring multiple hits against drones become statistically significant in most cases.

However, current vehicle rules state that if the modified DV does not exceed the modified AV of a vehicle, the attack simply does no damage. I considered simply making Armor Values for vehicles count as Hardened Armor, but decided against it as I didn't want to take away a unique feature of spirits, and focused on coming up with something of my own. I have two suggestions, as follows.

Proposed change 1: (Preferred)
Vehicle Armor counts as Hardened Armor
Normal Armor has a maximum rating of 20
Concealed Armor has a maximum rating of 10
Drones can be modified up to the lower of BOD * 3 or armor type maximum
Vehicles can be modified up to the lower of BOD * 2 or armor type maximum

The cost from Arsenal changes to 1000¥ per rating for visible armor or 2000¥ per rating for concealed armor.
Supporting analysis of Hardened Armor values

Proposed change 2: (Alternate)
Drone and Vehicle armor can be upgraded per the Arsenal rules, using the following guidelines:
Normal armor has a maximum rating of 25
Concealed armor has a maximum rating of 15
Drones can be modified up to the lower of BOD * 5 or armor type maximum
Vehicles can be modified up to the lower of BOD * 4 or armor type maximum

The cost from Arsenal changes to 1000¥ per rating for visible armor or 2000¥ per rating for concealed armor. Smart armor is not available, and note that visible Armor Values of 18+ will be the equivalent of a character wearing mil-spec armor in terms of legality.

Using the modification rules from Arsenal as a base, I expanded upon the options available to SR4A riggers. Armor values were generally much lower in SR4A, as were DV values, so I decided to analyze what would happen if I allowed drones to have armor upgraded to 4, 5, and even 6 times their BOD instead of the usual 3.

The first chart shows the results of this analysis. I'll try to summarize:
A drone at BOD 3 and upgraded to AV 9 will be destroyed by nearly every weapon in the game with as few as 2 or 3 hits.

Allowing an upgrade to BOD * 5 (AV15, which would cost 1500¥ for normal armor and 15,000¥ for concealed armor) significantly increases a drones survivability, meaning most small arms fire (anything with DV less than 9+) would either need to use Called Shots, APDS, Eplosive ammo, or a combination of the previous to have a statistically significant chance of inflicting damage on such a drone.

Allowing BOD * 6 (AV18, in this case), however, became too much in my opinion, as a BOD 3 drone would at this point be nearly immune to the effects of anything less than sniper rifle and dedicate AV weapons.

EDIT
I crunched some more numbers using a Steel Lynx as a baseline (BOD 6, usually AV 12 upgraded to 18, 24, and 30, at which point it became glaringly obvious that this is too much. As a result, I've included the normal Arsenal maximum of AV 20 as a maximum.

As the numbers below will show, an AV 20 BOD 6 vehicle stands a reasonable chance of surviving even a blast from HE rockets, and it takes a direct hit from an AV rocket to take it out in one hit. High end sniper rifles loaded with APDS and/or using Called Shots can also do it with 5+ hits, and most weapons in the 10+ range stand a decent chance of hurting it, though it will take at least 2 shots to take it out.

Analysis of BOD 6 drone with upgraded armor values vs common weapon types, standard condition monitors
Analysis of BOD 6 drone with upgraded armor values vs common weapon types, modified condition monitors

As the two tables clearly show, anything more than AV20 is going to be damned hard to dent. At AV24, it takes dedicated anti-materiel sniper rifles with APDS ammo and Called Shots for more DV to even damage the damned thing, and with AV30 even Anti-Vehicle rockets will be hard pressed to take it out in a single hit.

However, the problem remained that there was no middle grounds in terms of damage; as I settled on BOD * 5 as a maximum reasonable armor value, it still meant that if a drone was hit by a weapon that could penetrate the drones armor, the damage would be catastrophic. So, I took a look at condition monitors.

Houserule 2: Survivability of drones (does not apply to vehicles)
Under core rules, drones have a Condition Monitor of 6 + (BOD/2). Combined with low BOD and armor values of most drones, even the combat models (Steel Lynx has BOD 6 (meaning a CM of 9 and an unmodified soak pool of 18 with no AP), this means Heavy Pistols and Assault Rifles has a significant statistical chance of completely taking out many drones in a single hit.

Proposed change:
Drone Condition Monitors are the same as those of vehicles; 12 + (BOD/2)
All drones and vehicles have a condition monitor of 12 + (BOD/2) + (RG2 Size Modifier * 2)

To represent the more fragile nature of smaller drones, however, any negative size modifiers introduced in the optional rule RG2 apply as a modifier to Condition Monitor at double the RG2 value. The results are as follows:
Microdrones (size modifier -3): 12 + (BOD/2) - 6 = 6 in most cases
Minidrones (size modifier -2): 12 + (BOD/2) - 4 = 9 in most cases
Small drones (size modifier -1): 12 + (BOD/2) - 2 = between 11 and 12
Medium drones: 12 + (BOD/2) + 0 = between 14 and 15
Large drones and vehicles: 12 + (BOD/2) + 2 = between 17 and 20
Large vehicles (BOD11+): 12 + (BOD/2) + 4 = between 22 and 25

The second table shows the dramatic change in survivability this change introduces. A BOD 3 drone with armor upgraded to AV15 now suddenly is not only able to ignore most small arms fire (light pistols, machine pistols), but will survive one or maybe even two hits from assault rifles and similar weapons. Assault Rifles using APDS or Explosive ammo, almost all sniper rifles, and dedicated anti-vehicle heavy weaponry (as well as tasers, apprpriately enough) are still capable of taking out the sample drone in a single hit.

I believe the combined proposals of HR1 and HR2 is a fair one, as it puts the survivability of a drone in the hands of the rigger. Obviously armored drones (1500¥ upgrade for my example) have much higher survivability at the cost of being very visibly modified, while drones with concealed armor (15,000¥ upgrade in this case) are no different from the base model but much more expensive. A rigger can therefore choose to have an army of small, unarmed and difficult to spot drones (recon operator), or he can focus on a few heavily armed combat models that can withstand a significant amount of damage at a fairly high investment cost. I believe this is further balanced by the fact that once a drone's condition monitor is filled, there is no going back. A drone cannot be stabilized and brought back into the fight; it has to be hauled out of the engagement zone for repairs, a process which is highly costly under core rules (more on this later).

The one thing I have not looked at is what the maximum AV upgrade should be; I suspect that allowing a Steel Lynx to go all the way to BOD 6 * 5 = 30AV might be overdoing it, as it would take an Anti-Vehicle rocket, precision Sniper Rifle fire (Called Shot and/or APDS), or Assault Cannon fire to take these down. I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea per se, but it would warrant further investigation. I'll perform a more in-depth analysis of this later.

EDIT2:
The results of my second round of calculations confirm that the condition monitor proposal makes sense, as there are a lot of weapons that can hurt a BOD 6 AV 20 drone, but not many that can take one out in a single hit. To be fair, this is a piece of tech costing at the very least 20k + 25k for the drone, or 45k total, probably more once you add in weapons and the like. It should be difficult to take down, and it should be difficult to spot. The same drone can be bought for only 27k with obvious armor, but it's also going to be the equivalent of one of the heavier armored Iron Man suits, so it'll be about as subtle as mil-spec armor.

Armor values of more than 20, however, dramatically shift the power balance and so would not be recommended.

Houserule 3: Repair Costs of drones and vehicles
You all knew this was coming. 10% per box as per the R&G rules is ludicrously expensive for an archetype already heavily dependent on resources. I don't think I need to say more that this needs to be changed, and I see two ways of doing this (thanks to poindexter for the idea for the second proposal).

Proposed change 1:
Repairs cost 1% of the modified value (i.e. including upgrades) per box of damage repaired

This means that the more you upgrade a drone or vehicle, the more expensive they become to repair. It still means that even expensive or heavily modified drones and vehicles are fairly inexpensive to repair, as a fully damaged Ares Roadmaster (21 boxes) would only cost 10,920¥ to repair. Still, it's the exact same rule as from SR4As Arsenal, and I think this is pretty viable. For GMs wanting a little more realism and/or who run a slightly more resource friendly game (i.e. high payouts), however, the below change is my second proposal.

Proposed change 2:
1% of the base value of the vehicle per box of damage for the first half of the condition monitor, and 10% of the base value of the vehicle per bod of damage for the second half of the condition monitor

This change better reflects the difference between cosmetic damage and structural damage to my mind. To continue my example from above, repairing an Ares Roadmaster that's taken 11 boxes of damage (21/2 rounded up as usual) would only cost 5,720¥ to repair (new paint job after patching up bullet holes, replacing some glass and plastics, etc). To repair a fully damaged Ares Roadmaster (11 boxes at 1% and 10 boxes at 10%), however, would cost more than the vehicle itself at 57,720¥ total. This means that if the vehicle is unmodified, you're better off just getting a new one. However, since I'm using the base price of the vehicle in this case, any vehicle that has been extensively upgrade would be worth repairing. Chameleon Coating for a Roadmaster is 36,000¥ alone, and things like weapon mounts (especially if allowing the SR4A Arsenal mounts), smuggling compartments, armore (particularly with the above proposed rules) and so on add up really quickly.

I think both proposals have merit, and to me it depends on whether or not the GM and players want a grittier, more realistic game or a game where things like training time and repair costs take a back seat to the action.

Houserule 4: Various rigger-related clarifications
Whenever I play a rigger in a game, I have to ask the GM several questions to clarify what his understanding of the rigger rules are. I've collected all of these questions here for my own sanity, along with the suggestions I normally provide in these cases.

HR4.1: Drones/vehicles and smartlinks/smartgun systems
Suggestion: If a drone has a smartlink vision enhancement installed in an imaging device that is part of it's sensor array, the drone's Pilot program can benefit from the non-implanted benefits of the smarlink as long as it's mounted weapon also has a smartgun system.

HR4.2: Drones/vehicles and smartlinks/smartgun systems and jumped in riggers
Suggestion: As above, but jumped-in riggers with implanted smartlinks gain the full benefits when jumped into a drone equipped with a weapon with a smartgun system.

HR4.3: Drones/vehicles and Progressive Recoil
This one is down to personal preference, and keep in mind that drones and vehicles receive Recoil Compensation equal to their BOD (so an Ares Roadmaster makes a very stable weapons platform...)
Suggestion 1: All Gunnery fire mode actions remain Complex Actions, but the base type of the fire mode applies. Firing a weapon as 6-round Full Auto, for instance, does not accumulate Progressive Recoil, but it still takes a Complex Action to do so.

Suggestion 2: Instead of all Gunnery fire mode actions being Complex Actions, the appropriate action type to the chosen Fire Mode applies. Firing a weapon on 6-round Full Auto is a Simple Action, and does not accumulate Progressive Recoil.

For those of you who do not like the Progressive Recoil errata, I have a separate option.
Suggestion 3: Instead of all Gunnery fire mode actions being Complex Actions, the appropriate action type to the chosen Fire Mode applies. Progressive Recoil accumulates whenever a weapon is fired in an Action Phase, and does not reset until a full Action Phase is spent not firing a weapon.

HR4.4: Weapon Mounts and Reloading
A weapon mount doesn't clearly specify whether or not the weapon installed in the mount is modified for belt feed mechanisms. As I see it, two options are available here.

1. The weapon mount holds up to 250 or (500 rounds and/ BOD rockets/missiles for heavy weapon mounts), but unless the weapon is belt-fed already (i.e. has the notation "(belt)" as part of it's Ammo attribute) the drone has to reload the weapon manually, taking the normal actions as a metahuman with AGI=BOD. Using the below attribute substitution rule, a jumped in Rigger can use his LOG attribute for this action.

2. The weapon installed in a mount is converted to belt-feed, and does not need to be reloaded. This is a much simpler approach, but I would also suggest that such a weapon cannot easily be removed from the weapon mount and re-used, and doing so would require an appropriate Armorer test to convert it back to "normal" metahuman use.

HR4.5: Rigger Command Consoles and Hot-Sim
As per Aaron's reading, the +1 Bonus to Matrix and Vehicle tests from an RCC stacks with the +2 Bonus from Hot-Sim. To paraphrase Aaron; being a rigger is awesome.

HR4.6: Pilot Program Upgrades
Suggestion: Allow Pilot programs to be upgraded using the cost and availabilities of Agent programs (p246).
Usually means a Rating 6 Pilot can be bought once for 12k and copied across multiple drones (my own houserule, no copy protection in SR5 yet), or individual agents can be upgraded to Rating 6 for the difference (so 6k for a Rating 3 Pilot, as each Rating between 4 and 6 costs 2k each).

Houserule 5: Attribute Substitution
Thanks to Kincaid for this suggestion

I find the disparate attributes used by riggers while jumped in to be more than a little strange; the updated SR5 core rulebook does away with Agility for Gunnery all together, so at least now Riggers are free to use Logic to fire their weapons even when not using sensor based targeting (and proving that Aaron might not always be right in his interpretations). This still leaves Reaction being used for Pilot tests, and Intuition for Sneaking tests.

Proposed change:
Jumped-In riggers use the Astral Attributes Table on page 314 to determine which attribute is linked to specific skills.

Gunnery remains Logic, but Pilot X becomes linked to Intuition and Sneaking becomes linked to Logic. Piloting an Antromorph could allow Running, which would be linked to Charisma (ok, this one's a little odd, but stay with me), while BOD is purely used for biofeedback damage resistance (unless you regularly dive or free-fall with your drones, in which case best of luck with that!).

I think this suggestion provides an interesting alternative to the current rules, as it effectively allows for two "classes" of riggers; the full-VR immersion type rigger who mostly stays in the car and follows the team with drones and who relies on his mental attributes as well as a control rig and rigger command console, and the AR enhanced rigger who's got incredible reflexes and dexterity but who can also leave the car and join the team with his autonomous and/or remote controlled drones and still be a viable combatant.

To me, this option also makes Adept riggers much more of a distinct choice compared to augmented VR riggers, as they can compensate for the lack of a control rig with higher physical attributes without having to also rely on mental attributes. In general, I personally think this is a great houserule suggestion.

[Namikaze]

Excellent post, Martin - you've clearly put a lot of time and effort into your house rules.  I have a couple questions:

General question: do these rules only apply to drones?
HR 1: What happened when you allowed the drone to go up to BOD * 4?
HR 2: I really like the option of using size modifiers to apply to drone condition monitors, no questions there at all 
HR 3: I hate the 10% repair rules as much as everyone else.  I like proposed rule 1
HR 4.1: Total support for this - this is how I interpreted the smartgun system with drones anyway
HR 4.2: Even better - this encourages riggers to take smartlink implants, and to jump into their drones to get a little better dice pool
HR 4.3: I think that when a drone is self-firing, suggested rule 1 makes sense.  When the rigger is jumped in, suggested rule 2 makes sense
HR 4.4: I agree with interpretation 2
HR 4.5: Awesome
HR 5: This one is a little weird at times (like with Running and Charisma) but it does open up some interesting options.  Are you suggesting that a rigger can use their physical attributes or their mental attributes?  Or that all physical attribute-linked tests are instead linked to mental attributes?

[martinchaen]

Thanks Namikaze; coming from you, that means a lot. I really do appreciate you taking the time to read through, so let me see if I can answer some of your questions.

These rules would apply to drones and vehicles in general. I only did drone specific research on HR1 and 2 as I felt these were the ones that needed it the most. Vehicles are plenty tough in general what with the much higher BOD values, but I think they should be included for the most part in terms of these houserules. I'll try to specify which ones are drone specific when answering your questions.

HR1: Under the standard Condition Monitor rule, BOD * 4 armor made very little difference compared to BOD * 3. With a single hit the drones would still be instantly destroyed by any weapon capable of 10 DV (base DV 8 + called shot, for instance). The only difference was that holdouts and light pistols were less effective by by about 50%.

With HR2 used in conjunction with HR1 and BOD * 4, the story changes. BOD * 4 is also a viable option, as it reduces the cost simply by making it impossible to spend as much on armor, while still providing a significant benefit. Using 4 as a multiplier instead of 5 means the sample drone is immune to holdouts and light pistols unless they use APDS or EX rounds and Called Shots to increase DV. The threshold for an instant killshot also decreases, by roughly 10-15%. Essentially, an Assault Rifle like the Ares Alpha is capable of taking out a BOD 3 * 4 AV drone in a single hit on a lucky shot with regular ammo and non-called shot. This is not possible when using BOD * 5, as it takes a DV12 or 13 weapon to take a drone out in a single hit, or the usage of special ammo and/or called shots. A DV 13 or 14 Sniper Rifle with a Called Shot and APDS will take out even a BOD 3 * 5 AV drone in a single shot as long as it gets at least one hit and as long as the drone rolls average on the damage resistance test of 9 dice.

In short, BOD * 4 is a viable alternative, though the drones get a little too squishy for my taste at this level for the cost (difference of 3k in terms of armor upgrades, or 300¥ if you're not worried about how obvious your drone is), and my gut feeling is that if you spend 15k ¥ on up-armoring a drone it should provide damned near immunity to most small arms fire (that isn't augmented by good aim and or special ammunition designed to pierce armor, or  both).

HR2: Thanks! I looked at a lot of options, but settled on size modifiers as I felt they were an appropriate gauge of how "tough" a drone should be. Needless to say, this one applies only to drones.

HR3: Yep, same here. I wanted to present two options for those who want repair costs to be a little more impactful. As is, HR3.1 is not really that imposing, as repairing a single box on an unmodified Roto-Drone for instance costs 50¥, though a single box on a GMC Banshee is 25,000¥

HR4.1: Cool, glad to see I'm not the only one
HR4.2: Agreed; I think there should be some benefits for riggers who want to spend their resources becoming more effective
HR4.3: Interesting, I hadn't considered using different modes depending on who was piloting the thing. I'll have to think about this one a little, as I'm not sure how this would affect AR riggers compared to VR riggers, for instance. Thanks!
HR4.4: Heh, I'm actually a fan of 4.4.1 here, as I want belt-fed machine guns to have an advantage over, say, assault rifles beyond the additional ammo capacity. But, this is why I included two options.
HR4.5: I know, right!

HR5: Yeah, there are definitely some oddities. I would be suggesting that when jumped-in, a rigger ALWAYS uses mental attributes as per the astral attributes table. This is in part due to my agreement with medical science that our motor cortex wouldn't be involved in this kind of activity; to my mind (heh!), when a rigger is in virtual reality mode he is wholly within the matrix, and unless he goes to the trouble of overriding his RAS module (throwback! also, pseudo-science) his physical body is in shutdown mode. In my opinion, the only attributes that should apply when in the matrix are mental ones, similar to how AI characters in 4th only had Mental attributes and substituted physical attributes for mental ones when needed (like for piloting).

EDIT
I crunched some more numbers using a Steel Lynx as a baseline (BOD 6, usually AV 12 upgraded to 18, 24, and 30, at which point it became glaringly obvious that this is too much.

As a result, I'm proposing an amendment to the AV calculation of a max AV of 20 for drones, and probably for vehicles as well.

As the numbers below will show, an AV 20 BOD 6 vehicle stands a reasonable chance of surviving even a blast from HE rockets, and it takes a direct hit from an AV rocket to take it out in one hit. High end sniper rifles loaded with APDS and/or using Called Shots can also do it with 5+ hits, and most weapons in the 10+ range stand a decent chance of hurting it, though it will take at least 2 shots to take it out.

Analysis of BOD 6 drone with upgraded armor values vs common weapon types, standard condition monitors
Analysis of BOD 6 drone with upgraded armor values vs common weapon types, modified condition monitors

As the two tables clearly show, anything more than AV20 is going to be damned hard to dent. At AV24, it takes dedicated anti-materiel sniper rifles with APDS ammo and Called Shots for more DV to even damage the damned thing, and with AV30 even Anti-Vehicle rockets will be hard pressed to take it out in a single hit, at least with modified condition monitors.

Speaking of condition monitors, the results confirm that the condition monitor proposal makes sense, as there are a lot of weapons that can hurt a BOD 6 AV 20 drone, but not many that can take one out in a single hit. To be fair, this is a piece of tech costing at the very least 20k + 25k for the drone, or 45k total, probably more once you add in weapons and the like. It should be difficult to take down, and it should be difficult to spot. The same drone can be bought for only 27k with obvious armor, but it's also going to be the equivalent of one of the heavier armored Iron Man suits, so it'll be about as subtle as mil-spec armor.

[Namikaze]

I think putting a cap on the overall AV of drones makes sense, but I wouldn't make it a blanket cap.  Instead, I'd look at allowing concealed armor to be used up to BOD * 3, with obvious armor getting to go up to BOD * 4.  I was telling my wife the other day that I miss the days when drones and vehicles had Signal ratings.  Is there any desire to work Signal ratings back into the game?

[Sir_Prometheus]

So, I'm relatively uniformed about this, not having used vehicles all that much in 5th ed so far, but I do have two just general concerns.

#1 I remember previous editions where vehicles, including very light vehicles and drones, were just completely unkillable by anything  that wasn't basically an anti-tank weapon.  Like a Lynx could wreck your whole party if you didn't have heavy weapons with you.  Vehicles seem much more fragile in 5th. Maybe they're too fragile! Just don't return us to the situation where light vehicles, particular man-sized and smaller drones, are unkillable by small arms.  It's obviously OK if you need heavy weapons to take out tanks, APCs, other military or semi-military vehicles. 

#2 I see it cited all the time that a rigger with 27 drones firing on auto-pilot is the most dangerous thing in the game.  Is that true?  IF you're going to make drones tougher, what steps are you going to take to keep that from being a problem? 

[martinchaen]

Namikaze
That's an interesting concept, I'll have to think about that. I still feel like BOD * 3 is not enough, because drones like Roto-Drones and the aforementioned Manservant-3 will go down as if they were made of paper maché even to holdout pistols, unless one implements the Condition Monitor changes above. As for Signal Ratings; honestly, with the way the Matrix was reworked I can't see that happening. I think it was a neat idea, but it was a pain to keep track of, and I was never quite clear on what needed mutual signal range and what didn't.

Prometheus...
1. I'm not proposing these revamped rules be applied by the community at large, as they were absolutely, definitely, 100% designed for my own table. If anyone wants to borrow them, they should feel free to do so as I'm just tweaking what I think needs tweaking. That being said, all of the data is right there in my tables so take a look at the analyses and make up your own mind; you'll find common damage values based on weapon type, along with AP values with and without APDS ammo, as well as expected modified DV results based on average damage resistance rolls, and an easy color coding (green means no damage, red means catastrophic damage).

2.A rigger with 27 drones can be deadly, yes, but such a setup has several requirements and therefore weaknesses. First of all, since subscription limits is equal to Device Rating * 3, slaving 27 devices requires an RCC with a device rating of 9. Of course, slaving those devices together is not a requirement, but that means you're much easier to hack. 27 devices that aren't slaved also means it'll be dead easy to see them coming, because drones don't have a Sleaze rating and so only roll their Device Rating of 3 against anyone making a Matrix Perception Test. Yes, it's technically possible to get all 27 drones in position, but I'd say the chance of pulling something like that off is slim to none. Finally, as mentioned, a hacker gaining access to the riggers device (drones can be controlled through commlinks, cyberdecks, and RCCs equally, but only RCCs allow for jumping in), he can subvert the control of the rigger and make the drones fire upon the rigger instead. Best of luck dodging those 27 incoming rounds, boyo.

Also, 27 drones means at the very least an investment of 27 * 5,000¥ (the price of cheapest flying drone that can mount a weapon), which comes in at 135,000¥, not counting weapon mounts (another 67,500¥) or weapons and ammunition (Colt M23 and 40 rounds of ammo is 630, times 27 is another 17,000¥, roughly). So, that's a total cost of 219,000¥ for an army of drones that you can't reliably control (highly vulnerable to hacking), that can't shoot (limited to low sensor rating of 3 or accuracy of weapon, which means if you want to keep more than 3 hits (which your drones won't roll on average) you'll need to buy more expensive weapons), and that you can't hide (except possibly for high up in the air, but even then they are at risk of being spotted by the naked eye and/or cameras or something).

Riggers have the potential to be deadly on the simple basis of having access to a whole lot of things that can put lead down-range (aka Metal Storm), but it doesn't come for free and if a player tried that shit at my table it wouldn't be long before HTR knocked down his door, because tracking something like that would be a piece of pie.

To answer your question; I'm not concerned by this scenario, because I've yet to see any actually try it. I play a rigger in a game, and with these rules changes (which my GM has mostly agreed to thankfully), I'll have three drones capable of putting rounds on target (two aerials, one walker), as well as 6 small fliers for recon.

[Sir_Prometheus]

OK.  I agree there are logistical issues.  (and "27" was just a random large number, not picked with anything specific in mind)  But it sounds like $219k could easily scrap several $400k samurai. 

[Namikaze]

I can't recall this right now, but doesn't a rigger have a limit of Device Rating x 1.5 for slaved devices to their RCC/Commlink?

[martinchaen]

Prometheus
Keep in mind that any sane GM will, in my not so humble opinion, be entirely justified in smacking you across the jaw with a phonebook for trying shit like that, and/or send HTR to your characters apartment to drag him out kicking and screaming, having just set off an EMP or similarly drone destructive device to disable the rigger in question's army.

The drone swarm trick is about as subtle as a troll wielding an Assault Cannon and mil-spec armor in Downtown Seattle. It'll get you noticed faster than you can tell your drones to fire...

I'm choosing to put an end to this particular discussion right here, and I'll thank you not to bring it up again. Again, I have yet to see anyone actually try something like what you're describing, and it has very little bearing on any of the proposed houserules since an already expensive concept would be made even more so by a factor of up to 4, putting it well out of reach of most characters. If you feel like this topic merits further debate, feel free to start a separate topic.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Namikaze
I believe you are thinking of 4th Edition.

Your commlink (or deck) can handle up to (Device Rating x 3) slaved devices, becoming the masterdevice in that particular relationship.

Your RCC can handle up to (Device Rating x 3) slaved drones, becoming the master device on that network.

[Namikaze]

Thanks for clarifying that Martin.  The limitation of Device Rating definitely makes a difference to a drone rigger in particular - another good reason to use an RCC in addition to a Commlink.  But that limitation also keeps away any swarming mentality, hopefully.

I think the real sticking point with the beefing up of drones' condition monitors and armor values is going to be in finding a perfect balance that (hopefully) will work with vehicles as well.  I think it's a good idea to try to make the rules as universal as possible.

[Yinan]

One question, as I'm not entirely sure:
Are these Housrules for SR4 oder SR5?
You're referenzing to Arsenal and SR4A a lot, but I can't really determine for what Version these Houserules are meant.

[Namikaze]

This is for 5th edition.  The reason Martin is bringing up the 4th edition stuff is because it's widely accepted that 4th edition was the best edition for riggers, as it offered a tremendous amount of variance, utility, and adaptation.

[martinchaen]

Sure thing, Namikaze.

Revised suggestion to make it consistent:
All drones and vehicles have a condition monitor of 12 + (BOD/2) + (RG2 Size Modifier * 2)

This makes microdrones as vulnerable as they are today, while making most other drones a little tougher and large drones a lot tougher. Couple this with the armor upgrade modification and you have the option of seriously tricking out a car to withstand damage.

As for concealed vs not; in Arsenal, the general rule is that Normal Armor can be upgraded to AV20, wheras Concealed can only be upgraded to AV10. In both cases, BOD*3 is also a limiting factor for drones, while vehicles are limited to BOD * 2.

That being said, I feel 10 is not enough for concealed armor for drones in SR5 both because of their inherent vulnerability and because of the generally much higher AV and DV values. As a result, I think a balance can be achieved as follows.
Concealed Armor is limited to the lower of AV15 or BOD * 4 for Vehicles and BOD * 5 for Drones
Normal Armor is limited to the lower of AV25 or BOD * 4 for Vehicles and BOD * 5 for Drones

The only vehicles that come stock with more than AV15 is the Ares Roadmaster, and it's supposed to be armored. Vehicles range in BOD from 4 to 18, making the range of normal armor for vehicles 20 to 25

This works out as follows.
Analysis of drone with BOD 3 with concealed and normal armor values vs common weapon types, modified condition monitors
Analysis of drone with BOD 6 and concealed and normal armor values vs common weapon types, modified condition monitors

At Body values higher than 6, the difference between multipliers become academic, because even at * 3 they can reach 21 armor and so further comparisons become fruitless.

That being said, using BOD * 5 for drones and the revised AV maximums and condition monitor suggestions, medium drones become much more durable while still being vulnerable to small arms fire (light pistol would need APDS and a called shot to do so, but the possibility is there). To my mind, this sounds about right as an up-armored drone should be highly resistant to damage, while still being vulnerable to dedicated AV fire, which these rules make them out to be. Adding obvious armor changes the equation dramatically, but again I feel this is warranted. If a rigger wants to risk a piece of equipment in exchange for having HTR called in at first sight of the damned thing, I'm ok with that as it presents the players with choice. It might not be a smart choice, but the choice is there, just like mil-spec armors and assault cannons for metahumans.

Yinan
This is for 5th Edition; I'm using reference material from 4th to build my houserules.

[FasterN8]

I have a question about HR 4.5.  The wording mentions a +1 for using an RCC.  Did you mean a Control Rig, or a +3 (when in Hot-sim) on top of the Control Rig bonus?

I ask because a few posts after the one you quoted from Aaron he clarified, "I had assumed that you were talking about stacking the hot-sim bonus and the control rig bonus. They do stack."  http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=11514.msg238774#msg238774

[Serin_Marst]

Hmm, Looking at the latest spreadsheets I'd probably walk back the higher armor caps, keep the condition monitor tweeks and reconsider giving vehicles hardened armor.
Up until 5th edition Hardened Armor and Vehicle Armor were one and the same, explicitly so prior to 4th edition, so I wouldn't really consider is stepping on Critter's niche and should give a decent amount of protection against small arms fire.
As for why I'd step back, weapons like HMGs and the top end sniper rifles aren't anti-personel weapons, they're classed as anti-material weapons.  They should have a good chance of bingoing a light vehicle like a large drone(even an uparmored one), but looking at the data they mostly bounce off unless you can pull of a very lucky shot.

Also, I'd reconsider moving piloting checks off of reaction.  Two reasons for this:
1) Reaction is an augmentable attribute in a manner that is logically compatable with VR(Reaction usually mods are neurological implants).
2) Fluff-wise, the VCR implant connects to a different part of the brain to utilize the riggers natural reflexes (the same place Reaction mods are installed).  It used to even be the case that rigging required a dedicated datajack that could only be used for rigging.