Hello everyone. So, first of all, I LOVE Eclipse Phase. It is one of my favorite RPGs. I have been quietly lurking these boards for a while now. That being said, there has always been one mechanic that really bothered me: Speed. The discrepancy between someone with a high Speed stat and a low Speed stat has always irked me. I had the same problem with SR 4e. SR 5e's new initiative rules, however, work for me during play. The game still features multiple attacks. In fact, it features 1-4 attacks ala Eclipse Phase. But, it is easier to get 2-3 attacks. Meanwhile, both making only 1 attack or 4 attacks per combat turn becomes a less common reality. Finally, the amount of attacks you actually make on any given combat turn is based on an aleatory dice function. That keeps a high "Speed" (or its analog) as being less of a constant discrepancy ("I always make more attacks than you") and more statistical advantage ("I usually make more attacks than you"). I have REALLY been enjoying the way that mechanic plays out. So, I thought I would try and find a way to adapt that principle to Eclipse Phase. I wanted a little feedback. This house rule replaces the normal Speed rules:
You do not get to automatically gain access to a number of Action Phases equal to your Speed score. Instead, at the start of any combat turn you roll 1d10 per point of Speed score. For example, if you have a Speed of 3 you roll 3d10. You gain a number of Action Phases equal to the sum divided by 10 (rounded up). So, for example. I have a speed of 3. I roll 3d10. I happen to roll an 18. 18 divided by 10 is 1.8. Thus, I gain actions for 2 action phases.
Can anyone think of any ways in which this will damage the game's coherency? Would such a house rule have any unintentional side effects I might not be considering? I thought this might be a good way to tone down the Speed mechanic without totally ditching its principle.
I am still looking for a way to tone down the ability to make 2 firearm attacks with a Complex action, but I haven't thought of anything I like (and I don't want to take away the ability completely). If anyone has any ideas, I am all ears.
Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.
House Rules to Tone Down Speed and Extra Attacks (SR 5e Inspired)...
Mon, 2013-10-28 14:58
#1
Cyber-Dave
House Rules to Tone Down Speed and Extra Attacks (SR 5e Inspired)...
Mon, 2013-10-28 20:42
#2
LatwPIAT
Cyber-Dave wrote:That keeps a
Over time, this will still normalize to Speed 3 always having more attacks than Speed 1 and Speed 2; you've just introduced a higher variance for individual turns.
The first side effect that comes to mind is that it now takes a little more time to resolve combat, since every player, and the GM for all NPCs, needs to roll for speed every turn. This will slow down combat a lot in a group that hasn't optimized that aspect of combat.
—
@-rep +2
C-rep +1
Mon, 2013-10-28 23:45
#3
Cyber-Dave
LatwPIAT wrote:
The point was to keep the basic concept that a higher speed results in more attacks on average in tact; while doing so, however, I drastically decreased the gap in effectivity between the bottom and top tiers of speed. I have not, in other words, just introduced a higher variance.
In the rules as written, these are the percentile values for the number of attacks you will have based on your speed:
Rules as Written
Speed 1: 100% 1 action phase.
Speed 2: 100% 2 action phases.
Speed 3: 100% 3 action phases.
Speed 4: 100% 4 action phases.
After my house rule, these are the new values:
Speed 1: 100% 1 action phase.
Speed 2: 45% 1 action phase; 55% 2 action phases.
Speed 3: 12% 1 action phase; 66% 2 action phases; 22% 3 action phases.
Speed 4: 2.1% 1 action phase; 37.95% 2 action phases; 52.8% 3 action phases; 7.15% 4 action phases.
That is a drastic decrease in potency of everything after Speed 1. To show you just how much of a decrease, lets assume that the "Damage Per Attack" (after we factor in a hit rate) is 10. I am pulling this number out of thin air so that we have an easy number to work with. In the rules as written, this would be the growth in Damage Per Combat Turn (assuming only 1 attack per action phase): 10, 20, 30, 40. After my house rule, this is the growth in Damage Per Combat Turn that you are looking at: 10; 15.5; 21; 26.5.
As you can see, after my house rule, the discrepancy in potency between Speed 1 and Speed 4 is a LOT smaller. That is the point of this house rule. I want to reduce the discrepancy in potency (in order to stop Speed from being the "must have" ability for all combat characters that it currently is) while at the same time STILL making Speed a measure of the number of attacks you make per combat turn. I want someone with a larger speed to make more attacks (on average)! I just don't want the discrepancy to be as large as it currently is.
That is true. I will need to think of tactics to keep this extra step moving fast. Hopefully the general reduction in action phases per combat turn will also help to offset this extra roll. Thank you for pointing that out.
Does anyone else see a problem arising that I might not have thought of?
Tue, 2013-10-29 02:19
#4
nerdnumber1
High speed individuals will
High speed individuals will not have the luxury of calculating their action economy ahead of time and bonus speed will be significantly nerfed. Really, the Eclipse Phase action economy is kind of insane. You can easily multiply a character's actions per round with augmentations, drugs, forking (either for info morphs or physical morphs). In essence, a character has no upper limit on the number of actions he/she/ze can achieve. That can be kind of fun to think about as long as practical constraints punish any potential power gamers (do you want to try 100 merge checks, try to convince 100 power hungry forks to get deleted or see how far your rep and credits go to support your new extended and possibly illegal family?)
Tue, 2013-10-29 05:47
#5
Paal
I've houseruled speed similar
I've houseruled speed similar to this, but even more closely related to how it works in SR 5e.
The speed stat gives you the number of dice you roll for initiative and you add your INIT stat as usual. (Speed 2 and INIT 8 would give you 2D10+8). Highest Initiative starts, when everyone has made one Action Phase you deduct 15 from everyones Initiative and anyone who still has a positive Initiative gets another action phase, then you deduct 10 and anyone who still has a positive value gets their third action phase, the deduct 10 again for the fourth an final phase.
For example: Speed 2 INIT 8 = 2D10+8 = 21 (First AP) -15 = 6 (Second AP) -10 = -4 (No more APs).
Example 2: Speed 1 INIT 8 = 1D10+8 = 17 (First AP) -15 = 2 (Second AP) -10 = -8 (No more APs).
Example 3: Speed 3 INIT 10 = 3D10+10 = 27 (First AP) -15 = 12 (Second AP) -10 = 2 (Third AP) -10 = -8 (No more APs).
This means that High Speed characters often goes first which is a great bonus (and more realistic to me) but that they won't always get their extra actions. And also that characters with Speed 1 also can get 2 actions if they roll high enough.
This has worked pretty well in our last two sessions, but we're still rookies with this system so please let me know if you think this method upsets things too much.
Tue, 2013-10-29 09:31
#6
Cyber-Dave
Paal wrote:I've houseruled
In my first draft, I actually considered something VERY similar. I don't think your rule is any more or less balanced than mine, to be honest. I ended up switching up my process because your process required a little more math at the table, and it looked fairly different from any other rule in Eclipse Phase. I wanted to try and speed things up a little. So, my changes were made for stylistic reasons. I honestly don't know which method would work better in practice. Let me know how your house-rule works after a little playtesting!
Tue, 2013-10-29 09:35
#7
Cyber-Dave
nerdnumber1 wrote:High speed
Yup. That is the point. :)
Yea. I really want to tone some of that down. Nerfing the ability of one character to perform multiple actions is a big step towards toning that action economy down. Meanwhile, when I GM, I strictly keep all forks under GM control. You can make a fork. Your fork will go do what you tell it to. But, ultimately, a fork is MY interpretation of your character. I control it, not you. That helps to keep forks feeling alien. It keeps players from fully trusting their forks. It helps to, in dramatic practice, explain a lot of the taboos present in the setting. So, characters can't actually use forks to gain extra actions. Creating a fork is basically the same as hiring an NPC at my table.
Tue, 2013-10-29 13:01
#8
Cyber-Dave
Ok, so, some other house
Ok, so, some other house rules I plan to put into effect to limit the action economy:
Decreasing the Effectivity of “Double Tapping”
When using a semiautomatic or burst fire weapon to make two attacks, you waste some of the time and concentration you could have been spending to bring the muzzle to bear on pulling the trigger twice. As a result, when attacking twice with a single Complex action you suffer a -20 modifier to both your attack skill checks. Remember to note, this penalty stacks with the penalty for attacking different targets in the same Action Phase.
Decreasing the Effectivity of Wielding Two or More Weapons
When wielding any two (or more) weapons, you may choose to make one extra attack per Action Phase for each weapon you wield in addition to your primary weapon. You suffer a cumulative -20 penalty to all of your attacks during an Action Phase for each extra attack made. These penalties are in addition to the normal -20 penalty for attacking with an off-hand weapon. You may never attack more than once per Action Phase with a secondary weapon.
What sort of unintentional secondary effects might I not be thinking of with those two house rules?
Tue, 2013-10-29 20:35
#9
OpsCon
Why not just use the option
Why not just use the option (that was a house rule at our table made official option) in Transhuman?
We've found in play it works really well and keeps high speed characters from simply overwhelming lower speed ones before they even get to act.
—
KT
Alex 'Iceshade' Andrade
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo6_r1_400.jpg[/img]
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo1_400.jpg[/img]
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo2_400.jpg[/img]
Tue, 2013-10-29 21:42
#10
Cyber-Dave
Its still not enough of a
Its still not enough of a nerf for me OpsCon. The rules still leave characters with a speed of 2 always making 2 attacks and characters with a speed of 4 always making 4 attacks. I might use the rule from Transhuman IN ADDITION to the house rule I am writing here. But, the point is, I want to SERIOUSLY nerf the effecitivty of every speed after Speed 1. I want the extra attacks granted by speed to be POTENTIAL extra attacks, or STATISTICALLY LIKELY extra attacks, but to completely decimate the automatic potency of the statistic.
I realize my attitude isn't shared by all of this game's players. I realize some people are fine with the discrepancy that exists between Speed 1 and Speed 4 characters playing at the same table. But, to me, it is one of the very few turn offs of this game. After playing some Shadowrun 5e, I like their changes to the "Speed" (or its analog) mechanic so much that I really feel like applying the spirit of those changes to Eclipse Phase would make this a better game.
Tue, 2013-10-29 22:16
#11
LatwPIAT
Cyber-Dave wrote:In the rules
Two observations:
Decreasing the average damage-multiplier for Speed 4 from 4 to 2.65 reduces that total damage output, but doesn't stop Speed from being must-have for all combat characters. A 165% increase in damage is still desirable and will tend to dominate in combat - and with an expected value of over 2.5, high-speed characters will still require rather often three turns to resolve for everyone else's one.
You can achieve roughly the same effect by using the rules as-is, but setting base Speed to 2 and maximum Speed to 5. This also removes the dice roll [i]and[/i] reduces player headaches from not knowing how often they get to act.
Why bother? From a balance POV, everyone always have access to double-tapping anyway, so removing it doesn't change the action economy at all; you've just halved the damage-per-turn for everyone involved in combat.
It's also a triviality for anyone with a relevant firearms skill greater than 39; once you hit 39, the chance of hitting when firing twice and when firing once become equal, so you'll get a higher damage output by firing twice, making it the always superior option. All you're really doing is reducing the damage-output per turn for everyone who partakes in combat. This doesn't really change much except make combat slower, which I doubt is a desirable result.
(Well, single-shot weapons like the Plasma Rifle just got better, but I'd see that as a peripheral effect much better served by, say, making the Plasma Rifle use the semi-automatic action class.)
—
@-rep +2
C-rep +1
Wed, 2013-10-30 00:05
#12
Cyber-Dave
LatwPIAT wrote:
Speed will still be an important stat. I admit that. But, I am not trying to change that. I am just trying to reduce the gap between the have and the have nots, and make choosing a lower speed (in order to save on credits/rep costs which a player wants to spend on some other benefit) a real option. This DOES reduce the gap.
Huh. That could work. But, the "headache" you are describing is one of the "benefits" I am seeing. Feeling like rolling high might benefit you as much as a bonus to speed helps to keep lower speeds feeling viable EVEN IF the truth is that on average you receive more Action Phases with a higher speed. In my experience, aleatory functions help to obfuscate disparity at the table and keep players feeling roughly equal. That will happen due to characters within 1 point of Speed from each other often making the same number of attacks per Combat Turn. Additionally, having already used that extra roll feature in another game (SR 5e), I don't think it will slow down combat that much. I mean, in EP I will be saving time by the raw fact that characters don't roll to soak damage (they just subtract Armor from the weapon's damage dealt).
But, maybe I should try and make the mechanic work a little faster. Less math at the table will result in the roll taking less time. I will work on a second try and post my idea up soon. Thank you for the feedback! You helped convince me that I should find a mechanic that takes less time to adjudicate.
It isn't just single-shot weapons that got better, it is also melee weapons. It is true that this won't always reduce the number of actions taken. Many players will choose to take the extra action with the penalty. But, at least it helps bring melee weapons and single shot weapons a little closer to the potency of the semiautomatic and burst weapons. Why would it make things slower, though? The game will require the same number of rolls regardless... occasionally it will result in fewer rolls (when someone chooses to attack once instead of twice).
Wed, 2013-10-30 00:39
#13
Cyber-Dave
Ok, so, take 2 on the Speed
Ok, so, take 2 on the Speed mechanic (trying to find a way to tone down the benefits of Speed):
Reducing the Effectivity of Speed
You do not automatically gain access to a number of Action Phases equal to your Speed score. Everyone may automatically take actions for 1 Action Phase. If you have a Speed of 1, you may take actions for 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. If you have a Speed of 2, you may take actions for 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 9 or 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. If you have a Speed of 3, you may take 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 7, 8 or 9 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check; you may take actions for 3 Action Phases whenever you roll a 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. If you have a Speed of 4, you may take actions for 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 4, 5, 6, or 7 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check; you may take actions for 3 Action Phases whenever you roll an 8 or 9 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. You may take actions for 4 Action Phases whenever you roll a 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check.
So, basically, in terms of the last table I drew up, it would look like this:
Speed 1: 90% 1 Action Phase; 10% 2 Action Phases
Speed 2: 80% 1 Action Phase; 20% 2 Action Phases
Speed 3: 60% 1 Action Phase; 30% 2 Action Phases; 10% 3 Action Phases
Speed 4: 30% 1 Action Phase; 40% 2 Action Phases; 20% 3 Action Phases; 10% 4 Action Phases
In terms of the DPR growth (using the same numbers and assumptions I posted last time), we are looking at this: 11; 12; 15; 21.
Wed, 2013-10-30 06:26
#14
LatwPIAT
Cyber-Dave wrote:Huh. That
These are your houserules and your group, but all you're doing is fooling people who are bad at probability. You're obfuscating an issue, but you're not really dealing with it; at a 1.65 average damage output multiplier at Speed 2, Speed 2 characters are going to be lightyears ahead of Speed 1 characters.
I can't say I approve of that goal; personally I see it as pointless to balance swords against guns, and to try to balance bolt-action rifles against burst-capable automatic firearms strains credibility; semi-automatic firearms are superior for a reason, and enforcing arbitrary game balance to make knives somehow almost as effective as guns in combat is something I'd feel was weird. "Don't bring a knife to a gun-fight" and all that.
A turn is defined as 3 seconds long. By halving the damage output, fights will last twice as long in in-game-time, even if table-time remains unchanged. That's not a playability issue, it's more of a realism issue.
—
@-rep +2
C-rep +1
Wed, 2013-10-30 09:43
#15
Cyber-Dave
LatwPIAT wrote:
I guess it depends on how we define "lightyears." A 1.65 average output benefit is smaller than the disparity between melee weapons and semiautomatic firearms even AFTER my changes. As a result, it just doesn't look like that big a deal to me. But, the point is sort of moot. I put up a new batch. The new batch changes the disparity between Speed 1 and 2 to less than 10% (109% increase in effective, actually). Speed 3 would only give a 136% increase over Speed 1. At Speed 4 (which tends to be a little harder to acquire) you are looking at only a 190% increase. And, the new system won't require any extra rolls... how does take 2 look?
Yea, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I mean, I don't mind firearms being a little more potent, especially at range (and they still are), but they shouldn't blow melee weapons so far out of the water that, even at close range, it is always preferable to use a gun. There should be situations in which melee weapons are superior. And, as you pointed out, its not like the -20 will be a big deal in the hands of skilled shooters. It is a small nerf. It stops everyone from double tapping whenever they can. And, having shot guns in real life, I can tell you that double tapping is hard if you don't know how to shoot well. Taking the time to squeeze the trigger is often a smarter option in the hands of an inexperienced shooter. Not to mention, I come from a "balance and cinematics over realism" school of thought.
Yea, again, this is going to be one of those "agree to disagree" moments. There are many aspects of Eclipse Phase that I already find unrealistic. I care more about playability and cinimatics in this case. Not to mention, I don't actually find it realistic that someone can fire 2 shots/bursts every 3 seconds with no drop in accuracy. I actually find that very unrealistic.
Wed, 2013-10-30 11:38
#16
Cyber-Dave
So, right now, these are the
So, right now, these are the two ideas that are competing for a spot at my table:
Reducing the Effectivity of Speed
You do not automatically gain access to a number of Action Phases equal to your Speed score. Everyone may automatically take actions for 1 Action Phase. If you have a Speed of 1, you may take actions for 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. If you have a Speed of 2, you may take actions for 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 9 or 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. If you have a Speed of 3, you may take 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 7, 8 or 9 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check; you may take actions for 3 Action Phases whenever you roll a 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. If you have a Speed of 4, you may take actions for 2 Action Phases whenever you roll a 4, 5, 6, or 7 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check; you may take actions for 3 Action Phases whenever you roll an 8 or 9 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check. You may take actions for 4 Action Phases whenever you roll a 10 on the d10 used to make your Initiative check.
So, basically, in terms of the last table I drew up, it would look like this:
Speed 1: 90% 1 Action Phase; 10% 2 Action Phases
Speed 2: 80% 1 Action Phase; 20% 2 Action Phases
Speed 3: 60% 1 Action Phase; 30% 2 Action Phases; 10% 3 Action Phases
Speed 4: 30% 1 Action Phase; 40% 2 Action Phases; 20% 3 Action Phases; 10% 4 Action Phases
In terms of the DPR growth (using the same numbers and assumptions I posted last time), we are looking at this: 11; 12; 15; 21.
vs.
Reducing the Effectivity of Speed
Every character may automatically act on the first Action Phase of every Combat Turn, but characters do not automatically gain the ability to act for a number of Action Phases equal to their Speed. Instead, when rolling an initiative test a character adds a number of 10 sided dice to their Initiative stat equal to their Speed stat. For example, someone with a Speed of 1 rolls their Initiative stat + 1d10; someone with a Speed of 3 rolls their Initiative stat + 3d10. This means that someone with a higher Speed is likely to move before someone with a lower Speed. Additionally, for every d10 rolled that comes up on a natural 9 or 10 a character may take actions for one additional Action Phase. (Note, that this means that someone with a Speed of 1 will sometimes get to act for 2 Action Phases, and someone with a speed of 4 can potentially, albeit very rarely, act for 5 Action Phases.)
That would look like this:
Speed 1: 80% 1 Action Phase; 20% 2 Action Phases
Speed 2: 64% 1 Action Phase; 32% 2 Action Phases; 4% 3 Action Phases
Speed 3: 51% 1 Action Phase; 38.40% 2 Action Phases; 9.60% 3 Action Phases; 0.80% 4 Action Phases
Speed 4: 40.96% 1 Action Phase; 40.96% 2 Action Phases; 15.36% 3 Action Phases; 2.56% 4 Action Phases; 0.16% 5 Action Phases
The "damage growth" on that (again, using the same made up assumptions for ease of calculation, designed only to give a gnostic impression as opposed the reality of praxis) would look like this: 12; 14; 15.98; 18.
I think I actually like the second version more. But, maybe it is not enough growth? I could make the numbers 8-10 instead of 9-10. Then again, maybe this is fine.
Thoughts?