Lancer999

House Rules

195 posts in this topic

 

- For critical wounds I use WFRP3 rules and cards (I will make my own, with SW look&feel, when I have time), because it's so faster and more convenient than a crit table;

 

- for chasing I use house rules based on biding, inspired a french game (COPS) and modified for SW dices.

 

I thought about using critical hit cards. How do they work in WFRP3?

 

As for chases, the old James Bond game ('83) had a chase mechanic where each player would bid on the difficulty (abstractly reflecting speed) to see who got to go first and choose the main maneuver. Way more narrative than the system in EotE. I'd like to see a port of something like that.

Edited by Hedgehobbit
Jamwes likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought about using critical hit cards. How do they work in WFRP3?

 

 

 

s-whcrits.jpg

 

 

The wound is picked up in the wound deck.

each card has the description of the wound, the mechanics when relevant (black dice on some tests, ect.), and a severity value.

The player will keep the card with his character sheet for as long as the wound hasn't healed, so he always have the technical info available (and a constant reminder of his limping ;) )

If he has several critical wounds, the severity adds up and some advanced cards have a treshold: if the added severity is more than the treshold, a more severe effect happen, like this:

 

card-severed-leg-1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use the house-rule for permanent adjustment of a Characteristic as well (Changing all secondary stats based on that Characteristic, etc. It just seems silly that this would not increase Wound and Stun Threshold, and to be honest, we just kinda assumed it was that way from all the way back in beta and never looked to see if it was different. 

 

Our Dogfight house-rules are very similar to Joker Two, with opposed Piloting skill rolls as maneuvers against an enemy ship (Or a flight of minions, etc.). We even do the Successes or Failures modifying the relative arcs and such on both sides along with flopping it for maneuvering defensively. I hadn't thought about Guided gaining Prepare 1. We use these as well for most contested vehicle situations. This seems to work very well.

 

We also heavily use player descriptions of their actions during combat, to set up the pools of Boost and Setback dice. They have learned that if they do not think it through,they will be hit by nearly every shot, the range difficulty are not enough alone for defense.

 

For modifying Hyperdive's to a rating faster than 1, we do a .25 per modification option (If the drive is initially a 1, then the potential three .25's make it a .25 past lightspeed).

 

​I had rules for upgrading other aspects (Such as maneuvering and power-plants) for starships and vehicles before the Jewel of Yavin sourcebook (Though those are just for vehicles), but have now tweaked them to fit the speeder and swoop mods from that book. I treat modifications on weapons systems as their own upgrades (Including targeting) and as such gave ship and vehicle weapons their own hardpoints.

 

Another thing is I gave some starships (such as the A-Wing,  R-22 Spearhead, Eta Actis or the Aethersprite) a smaller silhouette (2) as they really are speeder sized little buggers.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One house rule I've been considering after running a series on of one-off starship scenarios with some friends so that I could get a better handle on starship combats is to change Gain the Advantage a bit.  Instead of it costing the pilot's Action, it's an Incidental, and the pilot has to get into Close Range with the targeted ship.  This would give a good justification for having a really good Piloting score, as pilots are constantly jockeying for position in a dogfight rather than simply blasting away.  We found that in most cases, it was simply better to use one's Action to attack since Evasive Maneuvers really didn't inflict that much of a penalty on the attacker.

 

Another one that I've debated adding is to change Evasive Maneuvers so that it upgrades the difficulty of incoming attacks once if taken as a Maneuver, but if taken as an Action then it upgrades the difficulty of incoming attacks a number of times equal to the pilot's rank in Piloting, thus enabling a skilled pilot that wants to avoid getting their hindquarters shot off the chance to do so.

 

Admittedly, the work I've done for the Unofficial Species Menagerie and Ways of the Force themselves count as "house rules," but I don't always make use of those even in my own games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeking critiques for my house rules that I haven't put into effect yet.

 

"Harsher Obligations"

1. When your obligation is rolled, your obligation gains the text "-2 obligation value, and the player's choice of either -1 strain threshold or +5 critical injury to his/her own critical injury rolls. This text stacks every time your obligation is rolled, and having an obligation value of 0 does not remove the obligation" A PC can completely remove the obligation through in-game actions ergo removing the stacked penalties as well.

2. Normal obligation penalties no longer apply. Rolling doubles on an obligation does not apply either. You and your party do not get a temporary strain threshold penalty when any obligations are rolled.

3. Obligations are now removable, instead of the Obligation 5 minimum. A character is allowed to have no obligations at all. A PC may now involuntarily gain an obligation, instead of the general spirit that only a player may take on an obligation.

 

Reason for change: Makes obligation harsher on the players (so they don't just take them recklessly). Now, I could do this non-mechanically by simply making obligation type encounters more difficult than normal, but I wanted to have a universal mechanical fix for this, because -1 or -2 strain threshold really isn't difficult enough for people to care. As a rider to this bill, you can also remove obligations, which is pretty much needed because a player would eventually be running around with -5 strain threshold at all times.

 

"Double Roll"

When a player makes a check that certainly uses two skills at the same time, you make both checks and allow the first "minor" check to modify the main "major" check. Example: You are trying to extract venom from a foreign snake. Venom is a poison, so it falls into Medicine, but it's also from a snake, so that's Xenology.

1. A double roll is called for in the example, and is not optional to the player. The Player declares which of his skills should be the minor and which to be the major skill.

2. Roll the minor first. The difficulty of the minor roll is not necessarily the same as the major, but for the most part, it's going to be. After that, you roll the Major roll, except the you can consult the minor roll's adjustment table as follows:

At least 1 success: Allows any of the following bonuses to apply to the Major roll.

1 success (after the first success) for 1 boost die.

2 advantage for 1 boost die.

Triumph can be traded for 2 boost dice, unless the GM can come up with something extraordinary with the Triumph.

At least 1 failure: Allows any of the following penalties to apply to the Major roll.

1 failure (after the first failure) for 1 setback.

2 threat for 1 setback die.

Despair can be traded for 2 setback dice, unless the GM can come up with something extraordinary with the Setback.

 

Reason for change:

Nothing really changes except now players can use two skills at once. Adds a bit of realism and could eventually reward creative thinking.

 

"Harsher critical injuries"

Rule: When you heal a critical injury, you can only heal half of it, so +10 crit injury becomes +5. After the day of initial treatment, you may make a medicine check at 1 lower difficulty to heal the target and lower his critical injury by 1 point per day.

 

Reason for change: As stated somewhere else on this forum, Doctors just seemingly make teams invulnerable from the effects of lasting critical injuries. I don't necessarily like this rule because it unreasonably penalizes the Doctor specialization, but I'm not sure what else I can do, so critiques and further proposed changes would be appreciated for this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One bonus point of XP, for each triumph a PC rolls.

I don't like it, it makes "rolling for rolling's sake" very good. Players might knowledge check everything, and players with a generalized skill set will eventually have more XP. A face type character is going to charm everyone for XP's sake. It's too easy to game, and it's difficult to tell when a player is trying to game the system, even if that player is inadvertently doing so. Not all players at the table make the same amount of checks, and proactive ones will usually try to do something before anyone else gets a chance.

 

I could easily imagine someone gaining a massive XP lead over other players from a variety of reasons, purposefully or not.

 

What is your experience with that houserule?

Edited by hencook
willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One bonus point of XP, for each triumph a PC rolls.

I don't like it, it makes "rolling for rolling's sake" very good. Players might knowledge check everything, and players with a generalized skill set will eventually have more XP. A face type character is going to charm everyone for XP's sake. It's too easy to game, and it's difficult to tell when a player is trying to game the system, even if that player is inadvertently doing so. Not all players at the table make the same amount of checks, and proactive ones will usually try to do something before anyone else gets a chance.

 

I could easily imagine someone gaining a massive XP lead over other players from a variety of reasons, purposefully or not.

 

What is your experience with that houserule?

I agree that I don't like the likely outcomes of that rule. I'd even rather see PCs gaining extra XP for Despairs rather than Triumphs if something like this has to be done.
Kager likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One bonus point of XP, for each triumph a PC rolls.

I did something kinda similar in D&D 3.5, whenever a character rolled a 20 on a skill check, they put a pip next to that skill.  After 3 pips, they were given a point of "misc bonus".  Now, these only counted when I asked for a skill check, not whenever they decided they wanted to make one for themselves, so it was limited to when I wanted them to have the chance for it.  I think adding a bonus rank in this game would be extremely over-powered, so I like the bonus XP, but maybe not with EVERY Triumph...maybe every 3.  Or give a discount on their next rank, or something.

 

My own house rule I use, and haven't had any resistance come about from any of the players, is that a Force-sensitive character gets to roll additional Force dice for each rank of Force User they have, at the beginning of the session for the LS/DS pool.  Works out well so far, since it can be good or bad for them, and even if it's good, it'll eventually be bad when the bonus points are flipped!

Edited by Raistlinrox
willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remembered another one from last game: Increases to Speed from Full Throttle do allow a vehicle to perform actions and maneuvers that require the higher Speed. This only applies so long as the talent remains in effect. This hasn't come up in the current game since no one is playing a Pilot (by Specialization, several have ranks in either or both Piloting skills).

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One bonus point of XP, for each triumph a PC rolls.

I don't like it, it makes "rolling for rolling's sake" very good. Players might knowledge check everything, and players with a generalized skill set will eventually have more XP. A face type character is going to charm everyone for XP's sake. It's too easy to game, and it's difficult to tell when a player is trying to game the system, even if that player is inadvertently doing so. Not all players at the table make the same amount of checks, and proactive ones will usually try to do something before anyone else gets a chance.

 

I could easily imagine someone gaining a massive XP lead over other players from a variety of reasons, purposefully or not.

 

What is your experience with that houserule?

I agree that I don't like the likely outcomes of that rule. I'd even rather see PCs gaining extra XP for Despairs rather than Triumphs if something like this has to be done.

As of yet, it hasn't been abused but if it does, I do like the idea of changing it to Dispairs.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When dog fighting, I also make all piloting checks an opposed roll, unless the player is rolling on a talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could easily imagine someone gaining a massive XP lead over other players from a variety of reasons, purposefully or not.

 

See, to me, +1 XP is NOTHING in this system. And you can't roll unless the GM allows it, which prevents the "rolling for the sake of rolling" issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One bonus point of XP, for each triumph a PC rolls.

I don't like it, 

 

I agree, but more because:

a) it's a universal truth that you learn more from failure than success :) and

b) because I'd rather reward the narrative that comes out of mouth of the roller than the dice that come out of the hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.  Our GM rewards based on being true to Motivations, success is irrelevant, our Trandoshan pitfighter/Marauder went with his gambling/fighting fetish and took an epic beating last night in an arena fight on The Wheel, cost us all money in bets, and we got 5xp for the true to form play. 

Edited by 2P51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Happy...Both Piloting skills?? What Driver & Pilot??

Piloting (Planetary) and Piloting (Space) are what I'm referring to in the above post. Several characters in the group have ranks in one or both skills.

Lancer999 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been trying different variants here and there, but one that the whole group uniformly agreed to:

 

If you don't have the skill needed for a check and are rolling your attribute only, upgrade the checks difficulty once.

 

Reasoning: this way it pays to have skills not only high attributes, since there is a chance for despair.

Lancer999 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group also ignores the part of vehicle modifications where replacing a mounted weapon with another weapon requires a hard point if the new weapon is a set of linked weapons. We don't feel that there is any good reason that replacing a twin medium laser cannon with a twin light ion cannon should require a hard point.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our House Rule for the Mechanic skill:

You can specialize in a specific category of mechanics: droids, weapon modifications, armor modifications, planetary vehicles, starship vehicles.

Mechanical rolls are normal for all skill checks, unless it falls under your specific specialization. Anything being worked on that your specialized in requires one less difficulty die.

Our ship's mechanic is good with our starship, but she's exceptional when working on vehicles, especially swoops and podracers.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I allow the following Mod for Concussion Missile Launchers and Proton Torpedo Launchers added as Upgraded Weapons (but not to launchers already mounted):

 

5 Quality (Limited Ammo +1) Mods. The cost for these Mods increase by +50% per rank of Linked on the launcher.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gamers are abusing Aim Aim Shoot. I'm tired of it. Honestly, I think they are too, but Aim Aim Shoot is just too good. I want to make Aim cost 1 strain, so if you want to Aim Aim Shoot, that's 4 strain you just took. Orrrr maybe I should just have a talk with my gamers, and tell them winning isn't everything, and please do cool things when I draw all these cool maps and they just stand in place and aim aim shoot.

 

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gamers are abusing Aim Aim Shoot. I'm tired of it. Honestly, I think they are too, but Aim Aim Shoot is just too good. I want to make Aim cost 1 strain, so if you want to Aim Aim Shoot, that's 4 strain you just took. Orrrr maybe I should just have a talk with my gamers, and tell them winning isn't everything, and please do cool things when I draw all these cool maps and they just stand in place and aim aim shoot.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Rather than imposing a penalty for using using their maneuvers to aim, try and come up with circumstances to where it's better to use their maneuvers doing something else.

 

Are the players reaching for cover? you can use a few advantages to negate their cover.

 

Lean on threats to inflict strain, if it costs 2 strain to double aim, they're not going to want to do it so often if they're soon running out of strain.

 

I'm sure others here are far more creative than I am, they're bound to have better suggestions.

Kager, whafrog and dougansf like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gamers are abusing Aim Aim Shoot. I'm tired of it. Honestly, I think they are too, but Aim Aim Shoot is just too good. I want to make Aim cost 1 strain, so if you want to Aim Aim Shoot, that's 4 strain you just took. Orrrr maybe I should just have a talk with my gamers, and tell them winning isn't everything, and please do cool things when I draw all these cool maps and they just stand in place and aim aim shoot.

 

What do you guys think?

I'd suggest talking with your group, and let them know that you think they're abusing the rules.

 

But at the same time, consider introducing encounters where standing still (which is pretty much required for the 2xAim&Shoot tactic) is a bad idea.  Put them in terrain that requires them to spend a maneuver each round to make a Coordination check to avoid falling prone, such as a fast-moving conveyor belt.  Have the combat area be subject in the midst of a bombardment, orbital or otherwise, and if the PCs don't spend a maneuver each round to keep on the move to avoid incoming artillery fire, they wind up taking Blast damage (not enough to kill them, but enough to deal a few Wounds each turn from debris and shrapnel).  Set up encounters that are chase sequences on foot, and if the PCs don't spend at least one maneuver each round to keep up with the quarry, then said quarry will quickly get away.

 

And as Kaesoe mentioned, spend that Threat to hit them with Strain.  Unlike most other uses of Threat, you can trigger that one multiple times per roll, just as PCs can spend multiple Advantage to recover Strain.  Have NPCs occasionally use weapons that deal out Stun damage, either as the Active quality or due to the Stun Setting on their blasters.

 

Obviously don't do those sorts of things all the time, but every so often build encounters that either require the PCs to spend their free maneuver on something other than Aim, or require them to be very judicious in how much Strain they expend during an encounter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now