Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 9800108" data-attributes="member: 984">-nods-  That's the thing I find too about trying to adjust values while keeping 2d6: because there's only 12 results each step between values is a big one.  I've seen people play/suggest dropping the gunnery values as another "fix" and, again, it results in a big increase of to-hit chances that too greatly swings things in the other direction (ie, devalues close in work).  By going to 2d8 (or 3d6) I think is a sweet spot, where because of the larger number of possible results the steps are such that it increases chances without grossly overshooting the mark and making hits automatic.  Also I went for splitting them so it isn't as punishing as always +2/+4 but also not so lenient as making it always +1/2 only.All that said, I'm with you on some additional tweaks to weapon systems as well.  I did like how stability damage was handled in HBS's 2018 Battletech game with the differing values.  I see even a laser as being able to unbalance a mech through the sudden loss of armour and the "steam explosions" that might happen from it, but for ease of accounting at the table I could see lasers being 0 stability, PPCs half, Missiles full, and maybe ACs 1.5.  Or just give an additional "Stability" value to each weapon that you have to track alongside heat/damage on your mech.  Then you could fine-tune the values as well as being easier math (as stability would be smaller numbers, like between 0 through 5, so easier than having to add 8 for this LRM strike plus 10 for this AC/10 hit plus etc).  You could even do a stability chart like the heat chart that would 0 at the start of every turn, but like the heat chart it would list the piloting roll modifier in the chart for easier tracking.  Might be too big a chance for CGL to consider, though.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Other big thing I would want to see realigned is Pulse Lasers.  Clan LPLs... are gods in the game, with their 20 hex range and that -2 which, again due to the 2d6 roll, is a huge bonus (effectively consider the weapon to have a medium range out to 20).  At 9+ they almost keep pace with two Clan ERPPCs.  (Double aside:  This is why I love the Incubus/Vixen.  9/14 and a Clan LPL is amazing.)  I've heard a common house rule is that you're only allowed to field Clan 1 LPL per mech, or even only 1 Clan LPL at all.   Wild.   At the same time, IS Pulse Lasers are anemic, with their shortened ranges meaning that even with the -2 they are not doing the damage to make them worthwhile.  IS pulse lasers could use a range boost, and Clan pulse lasers need their ranges truncated.  Or at least alter how they work so that it isn't a straight up -2 to hit.Hmm, maybe I should write some more alternate rules... though next I want to update my quad rules from 20+ years ago and help my four legged friends.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification