What house rules do you use?

[veltyen]

Against people yes.

4 km Tank M-kill with a Barrett in GW1. I cannot find a reference to it at the moment however

The thing is even with a 300m range increment a 3km shot is at -18 to hit. Hence the reason I was calling it an "attempted shot" rather then an accurate range. The greater range is not to simulate a greater range as such, but to make mid-range slightly more realistic.

Longest current confirmed kill in GW2 is 1050 yards (1000m). Previous wars have had confirmed kills up into the 2500m range (as you pointed out) but not significantly further.

 

[Straybow]

4 km Tank M-kill with a .50? Damned lucky shot even at 4 meters trying to hit an engine vent louvre.

-18 to hit? Use GURPS or similar target size adjustment and the anti-materiel hit odds are better.

I think that record shot in Afghanistan is by a Canuck. Helps to have icewater in the veins.

 

[veltyen]

4 km Tank M-kill with a .50? Damned lucky shot even at 4 meters trying to hit an engine vent louvre.

I beleive it was a de-track, which is a bit easier.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by veltyen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />4 km Tank M-kill with a .50? Damned lucky shot even at 4 meters trying to hit an engine vent louvre.

I beleive it was a de-track, which is a bit easier. </font>[/QUOTE]De-Track on a tank with a 50 at 4KM? Not very likely. A Track hit is tougher than a man sized target hit. And 90% of your hits on a track aren't going to significantly damage one. Especially at that range. I am assuming that you are shooting at the face of the track, not a side shot on the vehicle. (A Track hit at 4km from the side would be less likely than putting a round into the Commander's periscope at 4km and killing the commander.) Max effective range for a .5 is in the neighborhood of 3km. Even at 3km you have a significant arc. To the best of my knowledge the longest range for a direct fire (as opposed to a missile hit) tank kill is under 5km. (I want to say it is 4.8km but my memory has been faulty in the past.) And that was with an M-1, 120mm main gun. I do know that in 1987 an M-1 from 1st ID popped a high speed maneuvering target, while moving at 4395m. (Unfortunately it wasn't a valid target, it was a lost M113 APC.) That was with the old 105mm SABOT round.

As for assault rifles, vs. people? The maximum effective range of an M-16 is 460m. (ANd the current definition of MAximum effective range has been diluted over the past 50 years. It used to be an average trained firer could hit a man sized target more than 50% of the time. 460m is place a round in a 10m circle centered on a man sized target by an average trained firer 30% of the time, or some such nonsense. Against an armored, evading, firing target, maximum effective range of an M-16 is in the neighborhood of 200m and certainly under 300m.

I personally am no slouch when it comes to firing weapons. I qualified expert, consistently, with the M-16A1 and A2, M-60, M-9, and M203. I have fired for familiarization with the AK-47, AKM, AK-74, RPK, RPKM, RPK-74, SVD, PM, M1911, Claymore Mine, M72A2, AT-4, M249, M240G, M70 and M2HB. (And would probably have qualified sharpshooter or better with each if we had been keeping score.) I have taught marksmanship and weapon familiarization on these and other weapons.

 

[veltyen]

But the media would never lie! It could be my memory as I still cannot find a reference, however while looking arround I found a reference to long range tank gunnery (see below). You do however accept 3km as a reasonable range, considering I was mentioning "maximum attempted range", this I would take is that you pretty much agree. By maximum attempted range I meant "the distance at which someone familiar with a weapon may hit a large stationary target with a 5% probability" ie. The chance that a skilled marksman (because of far shot) rolls a 20.

<a href="http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm" target="_blank">
5.1km from a challenger in Desert Storm using a 120mm rifled apfsds round.</a> It is however a mil contracter marketing piece, so could be just as suspect.

The T90 should be able to consistently land effective rounds at this range, but it doesn't completely qualify as non-missile. It has an option of a laser guided hybrid missile/shell for long range fire.

 

[Straybow]

De-track for an M-kill with a .50? Perhaps a lucky hit fractured the drive sprocket?

As for Abrams and Challenger main guns they were routinely engaging at >4km and scoring one-shot kills with some consistency.

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

OK, so I'm late to this thread. I've only just bought the T20 rulebook (2 weeks ago!) and am still digesting it. (I've been reading nothing else!) (Oh, OK, "Honor of the Queen", but nothing else, really! )

First, I would like to thank Hunter, Martin, and all the people who worked on T20. For my money, it has been written in such a way as to capture the same "feel" that I had with CT/MT.

The characters seem equivalent in ability. Sure, they have classes and levels, but these are not onerous, and if you don't like them, Bill, you are probably playing the wrong system

The various combat scales appear well-balanced. By this, I mean that personal vs vehicle vs space combat appears to be balanced against each other. More importantly, they use the same integrated design system, something that was only ever the case with Striker and MegaTraveller.

Excellent work!!!

Now, having said that, what's an RPG without house rules? (And these are even encouraged in T20! Here are mine.

Hyphen's House Rules
====================
1. Attack Bonus
Use STR bonus "to hit" for melee weapons;
use DEX bonus "to hit" for ranged weapons (including thrown);
use STR bonus "to damage" for melee and thrown weapons.

If someone IMTU wants Weapon Finesse for their character, they can negotiate with me.

2. Lifeblood
[BTW, I love the way T20 does this; it fits CT/MT without being as deadly as CT was, y'know, "first blood" rule and all...]
Lifeblood can drop to -10 or -END, whichever is lower.

(This is a rule that we used to use 'way back in AD&D 2nd Edition, so it's not exactly new!!)

3. Critical Hits
Rather than totally ignoring armor rating (AR), treat armor as only half as effective. Halve AR (rounding down), then proceed as normal.

4. Burst Fire
Burst Fire allows an attacker to do one of the following:
- increase the "to hit" probability;
- increase the number of damage dice; OR
- attack multiple adjacent targets.

You pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.

(I'm going to re-read MT to write up the definition of "adjacent", and what the exact number of targets should be, but [from memory] I think this is the table:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Rnds Targets
1 1
4 2
10 3
20 4
100 5</pre>[/QUOTE]This is an attempt to match the MT autofire and T4 burst fire rules. Note: you CAN attack the same target more than once, just as in MT, but you are actually worse off than just trying for more damage - run the numbers and see!)

5. Modify the medikit rules
[Not written yet]
(...but my thought is to allow a medikit to heal you faster. I don't actually mind allowing this; it's intended to fill the "cleric" spot for T20, and work similar to my medikit for MT .)

6. Vac Suits
[Not written yet]
(I need to check MT again, but from memory their Armor Value increased as they went up in TL. In addition, I thought the TL14 tailored vac suit was MT Armor Value 7 - certainly better than Cloth, and able to almost defeat a gauss rifle (zero Pen, anyway).

On the other hand, have you seen the "normal" vs "tailored" TL14 vac suits? Why would you not buy a tailored one (OK, aside from the obvious tailoring that is required, no good for bulk orders, but for PC's, well...) - I think the tailored one should cost more, at least.

All this means that I'm going to review vac suits.)

7. Weapon Ranges
(This deserves its own thread. More later.)

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

OK, so I can probably post the burst fire numbers quickly:

Gauss rifle vs cloth (AR 6), 4-round burst, attacking to increase damage:
4d12 vs AR 6
= 1d12-3, average 6.5-3
= 3 hit points to Lifeblood.

Gauss rifle vs cloth (AR 6), 4-round burst, making two attacks on the same target:
2d12 vs AR 6, times 2
= 1d12-5, times 2, average 6.5 - 5, times 2
= 2 hit points to Lifeblood.

Interesting, eh? And not unbalancing, either.

More House Rules
================
7. Weapon Ranges.

If you don't like T20's weapon ranges, here's some options:

Option 1: stet
"Stand as set", i.e. accept them and move on, otherwise known as the "suck it UP, stupid!" approach.

Option 2: incorporate "magical" wpns; i.e. ones with "to hit" bonuses.
Remember that the d20 system originated to model fantasy games. Magical weapons exists in d20; I have not seen them in T20. That means you receive all the negatives without being able to offset them in any way.

Now, in fantasy terms, even an ordinary revolver is a "magical" weapon. The normal d20 rules have provision for magic; surely T20 can make provision for technology.

I have had a quick look; I believe that the "Aim DM" noted in my current Weapons Tables is sufficient to model the accuracy of those weapons. Treat them as a bonus "to hit", not to damage.

The way I figure it, the d20 system assumes that PCs will get magic weapons (bows, arrows, etc) as they go up in level, and has balanced the system accordingly. Therefore, all I'm doing is adding an existing portion of the d20 game mechanic back into the T20 mechanic. Capeesh?

The in-game explanation is that high-tech weapons are more accurate. Y'know, less affected by wind, elevation issues, etc. Mark Urbin, any comments?

Oh, and no, you can't get the accuracy bonus when attempting the "Shot on the Run" Feat (it's more like a "snap shot" from T4).

Option 3: chuck the T20 ranges and use your own system.
This is for those of us who want a system that fits closer to CT/MT's ranges than d20's ranges. For example, if you believe "snub plstols should have a max range of 25 m", then this does not fit with d20 (and thus T20) range mechanics.

At this point (first glance, really), I think that I can use my Range Table .
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Rng Diff Dice Range Proposed T20 mods
Num Lvl Name v1 v2
0 Easy 1D Close <1.5m 0 0
1 Avg 2D Short <3m 0 0
2 Diff 3D Med <45m -3 -3
3 Form 4D Long <300m -7 -7
4 Stag 5D VLong <600m -10 -11
5 Imp 6D Dist <1.5km -14 -15
6 Imp+3 7D VDist <3km -17 -19
7 Imp+6 8D SubR <50km -21 -23</pre>[/QUOTE]Version 1 simply subtracts the integer value of the average roll provided by extra dice above 2D.

I arrived at Version 2 when I wrote down version 1 and realised how close the numbers were to the original MT difficulty sequence (3-7-11-15-19) so loved by Bill (Mr Whipsnade). Yes I, too, still remember them off by heart.

Now to do some playtesting.


Comments, anyone?

 

[Psion]

Might as well deposit my .02 Cr.

1) In chargen, all references to gaining a "rank 0 skill" are deleted; you always gain 1 rank of skills from such benefits. IMO, the scale of skills in T20 is much larger than CT/MT, obviating the need for an artificial "basic familiarity" rank with wonky special rules.

All other references to 0-rank skills (such as J-o-T) merely allow you to use trained skills untrained.

2) In chargen, if you do not fail a reenlistment roll, rank transfers between services at O-rank minus one.

3) Str is the default for melee combat. (It was in CT as well, so I don't see why they changed it.) The weapon finesse feat from the 3.5 SRD is available.

Er, is that it?

There were others I considered:
1) I toyed with making a commando prestige class. Currently, army and marines have no access to stealth skills.
2) I toyed with giving classes on the low end more skill points.
3) I really considered the defense bonus thing, but perhaps not at the same rate d20 modern hands it out. It just seems to make more sense to me that people with more military training would be better able to dodge fire.
4) Stamina bugs me. Lifeblood solves the invlulnerability problem, but still, I don't see old men with lots of level having as significant advantage as they do. Maybe make stamina Con+BAB or somesuch.
5) Starship combat is T20's single best feature IMO, but it doesn't scale well. I considered linking critical hits more directly to the damage of the weapon. Frex, say you can't score a crit unless the craft takes more than a certain fraction of its remaining structure points in one hit (and if it takes a lot more, crits may be more likely or automatic.)

 

[Shadowdancer]

Another way of getting "magical" weapons into T20 is using masterwork items, which also exist in D&D 3.x.

Basically, you pay more for an improved, more accurate version of the weapon.

While in D&D, masterwork only gives you a +1, in T20 you can have as many plusses as your character can afford to pay for. Each plus is double the base cost of the weapon.

For example: Say an auto pistol costs Cr100. A +1 masterwork (MW) version would cost Cr200. For a +2 MW, pay Cr300. And so on.

You can put a cap on the number of plusses, if you want.

 

[Hyphen]

Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
Another way of getting "magical" weapons into T20 is using masterwork items, which also exist in D&D 3.x.

Great idea! One that even helps justify the weapons in in-game terms, without calling them "magical".

One thing I remembered (when re-reading the T20 book on the bus last night!) was that there are "magical" weapons, of a sort - the armor-piercing rounds. However, these are only "magical" in terms of increasing damage (by reducing AR); they do not grant a "to hit" bonus.

 

[mike wightman]

A problem with raising your to hit chance by using the "magical" bonuses is that there is no equivalent of the various forms of overlapping "magical" AC bonuses that you get in D&D.
d20M and d20SW give characters a defence bonus based on their level to make up for the lack of magical armour as BABs etc. increase.

T20 doesn't do this, so you'd have to be careful introducing anything that increases hit probabilities, otherwise combat will become even more deadly...

 

[veltyen]

Masterwork, HUD systems, Laser sights all add to to hit chance.

At high levels (over elite ~ level 12) there generally isn't ever a problem hitting any target except at long range.

Best AC you can get to is arround 35, with ~30 being a more normal "max" value. However that involves Battledress which is somewhat broken on multiple levels.

 

[Chaos]

I have also toyed with the idea of giving characters an AC bonus based on their BAB, in exchange for eliminating the AC bonus by armor (which still retains its AR, of course). That BAB defense bonus would be subject to the armor´s Max Dex Bonus cap - so if your armor had a Max Dex Bonus of +4, you could get a Dex bonus of +4 AND a BAB defense bonus of +4. I am also considering raising the AC bonus of Chamaeleon technology, and allowing an AC bonus (analogous to partial cover, or a low-level Chamaeleon technology) for wearing camouflage-patterned clothes or generally being camouflaged. (I´m also building a minor human species with natural chamaeleon ability, but that´s another story )

 

[Flynn]

Instead of granting AC bonuses based on BAB, consider granting them a Defense Bonus. The rules are available on various websites online, or from WOTC's Unearthed Arcana, an OGL text filled with optional rules. The Defense Bonus progresses like saving throws, and you could probably just approximate it with giving them their base Reflex save bonus as a Defense Bonus without having to do any work at all.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Despasian]

The Defense Bonus progresses like saving throws, and you could probably just approximate it with giving them their base Reflex save bonus as a Defense Bonus without having to do any work at all.

I've been using the Base Reflex Save as a defense bonus IMTU as you mention, and it has worked well so far.

Additionally, I prefer critical hits not ignore armor, unless a character pulls off a crit WHILE using a called shot.
I thought, armor penetration AND extra damage each time, was a bit much.
'course...critical hits with AP rounds...can get ugly

 

[Flynn]

I agree. If the damage is doubled, the armor can still reduce it, but more damage gets through. It works for me, and keeps crits from having an out-of-proportional influence on the game.

Alternatively, you could offer the players the choice between double damage and bypassing armor, i.e. you get one of the effects but not both. After a while, you'll see one option being used all the time, which will demonstrate to you what the players consider most effective.

Two more credits on the pile,
Flynn

 

[DaveChase]

Some of my house rules for rolling up characters:

4d6 for stats (6's count has 5's and if the player rolls all 4 dice the same number they can take roll with a +1 ability modifier or reroll. )

When Multiclassing if the player has ALL the starting feats required for that class they may pick 1 feat that is listed for that new class, preferably a feat that has multi-levels and that the character already has.

During the decoration and survival rolls, together we determine what action took place to explain the roll. These notes later add flavor to the character during play.

If during mustering out the character gets a weapon and has no feats/skill for that weapon they get the feat/skill for free (mainly used during CT generation but works well for T20).

For each full 4year term the player can pick 1 skill that will be listed as a hobby. They can pick the same skill each term but it will still be listed as a hobby. A hobby skill will always have a DC-2 when rolling against someone with the skill (standard) and hobby skills will never be assumed to have full working knowledge of the subject. i.e. they might absoultely believe that 'x' is true in that skill when it is nothing but an old wives tale.

Each full 4yr term the character gets one contact from that service/career background. This contact is considered to be like a skill and starts at level 1. They can apply skill points to increase the contact's level. This is done to show that no matter what you do in life, you will make some friends along the way, some of them become really good friends

Later, we develop whom and what of the NPC contact.

All players are allowed to roll for romance during each of their terms. What the roll determines is:
Was there a romance?
Was it a physical or emotional or total committment type?
Did it end well, badly or just temporary on hold?
This makes for some interesting followups during play (old lovers, jealous rivals, etc)
For each level of carousing the player can make 1 additional roll (players choice).
The player may declare before each roll of each term that they want the romance to be with the same person. The first roll using this rule is at -2 DC, second roll at -0 DC, and each roll after gets a +1 DC (so after 5 rolls the players has a +3 DC for the romance).

There are other considerations when rolling up characters but these are the more standard ones.

Dave Chase

 

[Despasian]

Some of MTU Character Generation.

Stats:
Roll for the 6 standard (D20) stats. 4d6 or other method.

SOC is a straight up 3d6 roll.
At mustering out, they also get a cash bonus equal to their stat modifier on the cash table.
So, a person with a 14 SOC would get a bonus as if they rolled a 2 on their mustering out cash benifits.

EDU starts at a base 10,
applying the character's INT and SOC stat modifiers.
So a character with a 15 INT (+2) and a SOC of 12 (+1) ends up with a 13 EDU.

I figured that a smarter, and more privledged PC would have a better education (or the reverse).
This also, increased INT importance, since EDU applies to so many skills that would otherwise be INT-based.

If the group is making PCs, I generally set an XP max for generation. That way, the group is balanced as to character level (whether they take 3, 5 or 6 terms to reach it), and I don't end up with the 4th level character among a 6th and 9th.

During generation, 1/2 or more of skill points must be put in class skills.

For cross-class skills, I don't use the .5 or double-cost part of it. Having a lower max rank seems to be sufficient.

That's the main ones. Some minor changes dependent on class/race/etc.

 

[RickA]

We use 100 points to spend on the stats, this works out to the same number per stat as we use in our DnD game. Gives the players the ability to tailor their character to what they want to play and make sure no one feels weak or disadvantaged just due to a die roll.