[SR5] House rules

[Chimera]

Given some dupious editing... These issues will come up.

1) Principle: You can't dodge AoE. (Interpretation)
Officially stated as intent of rules. More on this later, I'm considering a hit the deck rule.

2) Indirect Area Spells (House Rule)

Text change page 283:
The test is like that for grenades (p. 181): a Spellcasting + Magic [Force] (3) Test with scatter of 2D6 meters. Unlike grenades, you get to add your net hits on this test to the Damage Value of the spell, but only if you
beat the threshold; otherwise the spell still detonates, but the hits below threshold are used to reduce scatter by one meter per hit.

Reason: See 1. This is interpretation on the removal of the defence test. Now these spells are just grenades, like indirect normal are bullets. Tempted to make them have fade off like grenades too.

3) Counter Spelling (Interpretation)
If counter spelling does not apply - like in Indirect AoE, treat it as armor and add it to the resist roll vs the damage.

4) Half Price Software (House Rule)
Affects software that has a fixed rating for 1 to 6. Rating 1 to 3 at half listed cost. This effects Autosofts, Knowsofts, Lingasofts, Activesofts etc.
Reason: It seems to miss the cheaper for lower rating breakpoint other programs have. This is not so much for players (who will just go for 6) but more for me as a GM. This effects up front cost to purchase and also the loot value.

5) New Item (House Rule)
Vehicle Armor Plating
Effect: +4 to the vehicles armor rating, -1 to vehicles handling.
Limited: Final modified Armor after this is placed on vehicle cannot be greater than Body×3, only one may be mounted.
Cost: Body x 750
Availability: Body of vehicle

Reason: Drone armor does not even get close to an Armored Jacket and Drones are very glass cannon'ish. This would be one of the first things added when the gear book comes out, I'm just adding a more penalized version of it. Originally I had this at +6, but I need to factor in that vehicles ignore stun and therefore if armor is too high very few weapons can hurt them.
Note: For now this is a trial item, if the bodyX3 restriction is to high then it may be reduced to bodyX2.

6) Weapon Mount (Interpretation)
"Standard weapon mounts may hold any assault rifle or smaller-sized weapon". Generally I will accept any item listed in weapon order up to assault rifle. Anything larger requires special exception. I will accept the Ruger 100 for now as the only applicable sniper rifle that can be mounted on a standard mount.

7) Control tests for air vehicles in windy conditions (Interpretation)

Weather is windy in the Chicagee, very windy. Therefore flight is difficult for aircraft. Wind will typically be either light or moderate, most likely moderate. A standard control test for an air vehicle will be threshold equal to the wind environment penalty rating (min 1). So in moderate wind that is a 3 threshold. I expect a rigged vehicle would have no trouble with this, a 3 autosoft drone would have trouble, a 6 autosoft drone would be fine. I would not recommend deploying a drone in strong winds, but jumped in it would be fine (See below).

Below about 100 meters and in an urban area a pilot may be able to find buildings to use as wind cover to minimize wind exposure. This would need to be stated as an action. I will generally assume the wind is easterly, from the lake. Seeking cover for a hover capable unit would reduce the penalty and the need for the below rule to apply.

This has the effect of grounding a lot of aircraft in strong winds. This is because the threshold for control is very high at 6, and handling is the test limit - generally 3 to 6. Jumping in adds the control rig bonus to the threshold allowing many aircraft to operate in these extreme conditions. Strong winds would be very rare, but as we know can occur.

8 ) Arial shooting in windy conditions (House rule)

For Drones (any aircraft body 6 or less included for now), under moderate or strong wind conditions and airborne, I will require a pre-shot complex action for vehicle control to stabilise in the wind. This is to be taken in a phase immediately prior to any attack phase. This is a standard control test, failure is loss of control as per normal. If multiple shots are taken in a round this action will need to be taken more than the standard once per round.(This is GM hand-wavy)

9) Partial Limbs. (Interpretation)
"When a particular limb is used for a test (such as leading an attack with your cyberarm), use the attribute for that limb (natural or cyber); in any other case, take the average value of all limbs involved in the task."
Adding these as I rule on them.
Partial Arm: Agility bonus applies to one handed weapons, for firearms this is weapons up to SMGs.

Half hand agility bonus
[27/1 edit: added the vehicle stuff]
[11/2 edit - modified armor restriction, added 6, 7, 8, 9.]

[Chimera]

Update bump.

Also test combats with Chris show confusion on multiple attack rules for burst fire.

Still digesting forums.
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=11965.0

The bursts in the book seem to be single target only. Using two guns in the same mode should allow two targets to be attacked. Currently no rules for walking targets in FA. But the suppression rules are new and I think they are intended to be the full auto walk rules for this edition.

So for now I am looking at ruling:
Burst are single target attacks.
The only exception to this is dual wield attacks using same gun and mode to attack two seperate targets using pool splitting.
Supresion fire is for attacking multiple targets.

[Kaneski]

EDIT: All redacted because of combat terms confusion. Weeee!

[Chimera]

Um.....
Not sure I follow.

I'm effectively making all burst fire single target only, except in the two weapon catagory which is 2 way split as per all the rules (including the range restriction).

Knowbody has a character really built on this anyway. So duel weapon is not likely to come up.

This is because the rules for split fire and bursts are effectively missing.
Right now I'm not going to fill the gap with a house rule as we still need to get the basics down pat.

Would I allow a semi auto pool split... maybe, its a bit like melee pool splitting, just with recoil on the attacker. But really right now we need to see how basic combat flows first.

You seem to be splitting pools over phases... no idea why sorry. I am just going to stick to the base rules for now and not try to balance things I have not played out for a bit.

So yes, most combat phases will be simple action (cover, aim) and simple action attack. Or just a complex action attack. Three passes (phases) lets you do it three times.

I am expecting to see this clarified in the run and gun book that is next on the release schedule anyway.

[Kaneski]

...

Right. I totally mistook "Action Phase" for "Combat Turn". SR4 called them "Initiative Pass" and "Action... something".

Nevermind. Take it all back.

[Chimera]

As you typed this even I added an in bracket (phases) to the above

Yes, re-reading this edition has been a bit of an "unlearn what you have learned" experience.

Melee combat is radically different...

Overall loving the new system, hating the editor

[Loswaith]

Actually jackson was initially built around akimbo pistols (I was just aware of the rules on it), however the multiple attack rules (splitting pools) seem to be what is used reguardless of multiple attacks with two weapons or the same weapon, so its based more about targets than attacks.

The net result seems to be all about the ammount of lead you can put into the air during the process.  The more you can thow out the less defence a target has.

Oratleast thats my understanding of the rules.

[Chimera]

Actually jackson was initially built around akimbo pistols (I was just aware of the rules on it), however the multiple attack rules (splitting pools) seem to be what is used reguardless of multiple attacks with two weapons or the same weapon, so its based more about targets than attacks.

The net result seems to be all about the ammount of lead you can put into the air during the process.  The more you can thow out the less defence a target has.

Oratleast thats my understanding of the rules.

Yeah, pretty much more bullets are good

Yeah - akimbo weapon are a go for split fire - so feel free to use em if you want. For now I am limiting it to just a direct 2 way split. You can use bursts in this mode, so long as both use the same burst mode.

Otherwise I am not allowing multiple attack combined with any firearm combat - literally the rules are absent.

Despite my musing above, you can't even split with a single handed SA weapon - "Semi-automatic weapons can take advantage of the Multiple Attacks Free Action if the shooter has two semi-automatic weapons.". So it qualifies itself as only with two anyway.

[Loswaith]

Look at the semi-automatic burst fire rules, that explains how you can use multiple attacks with a single semi-automatic weapon.

Likely not going to do much akimbo shooting, the splitting your pool is quite harsh in that respect, so will tend to be different types of gun/ammo per hand instead.  Though its nice to have the option.

[Chimera]

Look at the semi-automatic burst fire rules, that explains how you can use multiple attacks with a single semi-automatic weapon.

Yeah, it’s a broken chain:

Pg. 179 - Semi-Automatic bursts can take advantage of the Multiple Attacks Free Action to fire at multiple targets with the same burst.

Leads to:

Pg.164 - Multiple Attacks
A character may use a Free Action to attack multiple targets in a single action (see Multiple Attacks, p. 196) by splitting their dice pool. This action must be combined with a Fire Weapon Action, Throw Weapon Action, Melee Attack Action, Reckless Spellcasting, or Cast Spell Action.

Leads to:

Multiple Attacks
Characters sometimes want to really put on the hurting in a single Action Phase and can choose to attack more than once in a single Action Phase by using the Multiple Attacks Free Action. This action represents both attacking multiple times from a single melee weapon and attacking with two different weapons (firearms or melee) [GM – note how this excludes Semi-Automatic bursts]. The attacker’s dice pool is calculated with all modifiers (Wound, Environmental, Situational, and the full recoil of all attacks if it’s a ranged attack) and then split as evenly as possible between all attacks, and each attack is handled separately. (Keep in mind as the dice pool gets smaller the chances of a glitch rise.)
Edge spent on this test adds into the pool before it is divided.
The total number of attacks you can make in a single Action Phase is limited to one-half the attacker’s Combat Skill.

So, now we have the first part of the chain broken by the third.
But let’s ignore that and continue.

The burst is done and calculated as per normal, but what is the defence penalty on the defender? For a SA burst that’s -2 to each target. Even if I did a three way split and attacked three targets?
What if I did the same for a full burst = 10 bullets = split over 3 targets = each has a -9 penalty to defence.

What I just wrote is the common interpretation. Many people play with this. Considering an average defence pool is 8 for NPCs, and some PC's this is very harsh.

But what is really missing is the rules for splitting bursts in multiple attacks. The burst rules we currently have are the wide bursts from SR4. For now I am enforcing the sentence: This action represents both attacking multiple times from a single melee weapon and attacking with two different weapons.

Until I see something clear from future books. Realistically - as you say - the split pool is harsh anyway - so not much of a loss, if any at all given it applies to both NPC's and PC's equally.

[Kaneski]

Looking through the rules on blind fire and barriers - a contradiction arises.

p. 197 says that shooting through a solid barrier applies the blind fire penalty, but the hidden defender is considered 'unaware'. This means no defence roll - in and of itself quite nasty, and quite stupidly - worse than sticking your head partially out into 'good cover' for 4+rea/int instead of 6.

p. 190 describing cover says that the bonus from cover does not negate the -6 penalty for blind fire if the target is in full (100%) cover - it says both apply. Both can't apply if blind fire denies an opponent a chance to defend.

Clearly - a contradiction. My feeling on this is give only 1 bonus/penalty as applicable: +4 to defence if target can be seen, -6 to attack if in full cover, but the defender gets a roll either way. The only time a defence roll should be denied is when the defender is unaware of the attacker. To clarify - I think both parties going into 100% concealment, and one of them repositioning before firing - should at least call for a perception check before defence is denied.

In a group vs group combat scenario, the shared images from AR are going to be so common that even if you can't directly see the guy about to shoot the box you're behind, you know he's about to fire and so you're not 'unaware'.

[Loswaith]

A bunch of the rules are conflicting in places, even logically (like being able to melee attack twice with the same weapon but not a semi-automatic like Chimera has shown from the clarifications), while burst appears to be limited, and the semi-automatic burst is tacked on-top.

As to Burst attacks and the defence penalities I'd say its more about the number of bullets being shot at a target, so a 3 round burst at a single target gets the peneality a 3 round burst at 3 targets dont.
 I look at it like that simply because it doesnt seem to increase damage directly (that I cound find) for firing more bullets (its about damage per attack, rather than per shot), so your more likely to hit with atleast 1 thus increasing the chance to hit (additional hits will increase the damage indirectly though, with the same accuracy limits).

Though like you originally mentioned keeping burst to single targets is a good start for minimal rules modifications.  As it is multipe targets/attacks seems highly discouraged by the split pool mechanic.

[Chimera]

RE: Lifestyles

Ok, I'm going to open this one up, Brun has been on my back about this one. Reading this I have no problems with customised lifestyles in play. These rules will require GM nod (Light approval).

Reference - Runner companion 4th edition. Effectively I am placing these rules in play.
Lifestyle costs are identical.
If you want to use the base book one use those rules, if you want to use the companion use those. I will hold the two rule sets relatively separate here.
Some references may need to be adjusted to the new addition, we can do this on a case by case basis.

Looking at the qualities, a rough conversion is +1LP = +20%
* Special work area is the same as workplace, but has a fixed cost. I would allow the dice bonus to apply to the runners companion version.
* Extra secure is just purchasing security rating one level higher (+1LP, excerpt for luxury).
* Obscure/Difficult to Find is similar to Inconspicuous housing... Inconspicuous housing is stronger on the difficulty to find, so obscure could be used as a +1LP version.
* Cramped is a version of necessity rating
* Dangerous Area is rough neghborhood

Feel free to make up your own qualities. Also to flesh out any of these qualities and issues.

Also, given the release rate of books for the new edition is positively glacial, I am happy to discuss conversion of items as we go. Just not whole books! Also, if the work is mostly done for me I am even happier. Also also, this is in light of the fact that the more I read the more I find copy/paste from 4th. This will be case by case. No social drones, just saying.