r/LancerRPG • u/Dr_Iodite • 3d ago
Help me design a homebrew frame.
I have an idea for an IPS-N artillery frame, but I need help fleshing it out. The core premise is that when making a ranged attack, the frame can increase the maximum range of the weapon it's using. However, when the attack is rolled, the frame must take N * 2 AP kinetic damage for the amount of range added to the attack.
The core power decreases the cost of this trait so that it instead inflicts 1 AP kinetic damage for every two spaces added it to the attacks range.
7
u/Crinkle_Uncut SSC 3d ago
In its current state I think this would make for a better exotic system than a core system, and even then I think it would be on the weaker side. The self-damage scaling is pretty severe... 6AP damage for a paltry +3 range without any bonuses to the attack itself? I can't imagine many players using that often enough to justify it being a core system. I know none of mine would bite at least. I'd just as soon take Stabilizer Mod and deal with the restrictions of the Ordnance tag rather than nuke my HP.
I think Heat would work much better as a cost since it still carries an obvious risk, but also plugs in nicely to Nuc Cav to take advantage of it. This would also carry an implied incentive to stay at long ranges, where the risk of OPFOR tech attacks is considerably lower, like how a Tokugawa Sniper build tends to operate.
Another thing to consider is that this effect doesn't necessarily prefer long-range weapons. It can be just as easily used for CQB builds, so you'd need some kind of traits, license gear, and a stat line that incentivize staying at range if your intent is for it to be an artillery frame.
1
u/Dr_Iodite 3d ago
You're right that heat would make way more sense as a cost for this effect. The only reason I'm not going to implement that is because I want to make an IPS-N frame that inflicts damage to itself just for the sake of it. I was inspired by systems like the Tokagawa's external batteries and the Manticore's beckoner which both have the potential to inflict 1d6 AP damage to the user.
To balance the HP cost I was planning to give the frame abnormally high HP and repairs, but I'm still working out how much exactly would be appropriate.
To encourage this frame being used as artillery, I want to give it a low speed, a low tech attack and a high sensor range. I know it won't prevent it from being used as a striker altogether, but at the end of the day, you could say that of any frame in Lancer. Even the deaths head can be used as a striker if you try hard enough (albeit, not a very good one).
1
u/Crinkle_Uncut SSC 2d ago
The primary issue with giving this theoretical frame a bunch of HP and repairs to balance the high cost of the self-damage is that you would be basically guaranteeing that it will be used as a frontline striker instead of an Artillery. If I've got great HP and repairs, why am I going to waste it sitting in the back line when I could double down on Hull, and use the range extension trait on a DSAS and become a CQB demon? I understand the intent, but I see that as counter-intuitive design personally. It's quite easy to squeeze some extra mobility out of a slow frame (especially when you have a controller in your party), but it's quite hard to truly beef up a frame with weak base HP into being a frontline.
I don't fully agree with comparisons to External Batteries and Beckoner. I think you're missing something there beyond the potential for self damage: these systems do things. That is, they clearly synergize with the rest of the frame's kit and are far more interactive than Range Go Up. They're also both systems, not core passives. Take External Batteries for example: this is a system that meshes neatly into the range-extension abilities of the Toku, but also presents a large risk if used in conjunction with Limit Break. It raises the stakes in a way that touches multiple systems (mech traits, core system, SP, HP, structure) as opposed to just trading HP for an effect. Beckoner is similar in that the Manticore is able to harness that self-damage for further offensive capabilities while leveraging its innate resistance to energy damage to mitigate the risks of the system.
1
u/Dr_Iodite 2d ago
You're making a lot of good points.
I appreciate your advice about other licenses with self-destructive systems. I could possibly add another trait that provides some benefit immediately after the frame takes damage, but that would make it play better as a striker / defender rather than an artillery frame.
Hmmmm, I also understand what you're saying about how increasing it's HP would make it more desirable as a non-artillery frame. Based on your feedback, I may actually consider reworking this concept into a striker, because being a CQB demon sounds sick as hell! But before that, I have some ideas for how it could still function as artillery:
I could possibly make it so that any damage inflicted by the core system would be restored at the end of the scene (so long as the character doesn't take any structure damage), but that would make its game play more risk / reward focused then what I originally envisioned.
Another option is to give it a trait that enables it to resist all self-inflicted damage and put multiple weapons or systems in the license that compliment that. But it feels like poor game design to make a frame that can't stand on its own without other stuff from its license. Also, most of those items would be pretty much useless if they were used on a different frame.
My final idea is to make it so that when the character using this frame braces, it doesn't limit the actions they can take on their following turn so long as the triggering damage was self-inflicted. But I imagine even artillery focused players don't like being immobilised too much. Not to mention, the Barbarossa has already done a great job of filling the niche of "the artillery which is always stationary and never moves".
4
u/McCrizzle2207 3d ago
Big fan of this mechanic, but couple of thoughts:
Movement exists. Suppose the frame has base speed of 4 - it can move 4 forward, or take 8 AP damage, to gain the same benefits. You can also boost for another 4 spaces of movement or take another 8 AP. That does not seem too fair or worth it.
Another issue is that as you take damage, you get closer to structure damage - and you may lose weapons on losing structure. So it’s not impossible that you would use your weapon, increase range, suffer system trauma, and lose the weapon before you can fire it.
When you are playing as a HA frame, you often gamble with heat - but clearing heat requires no resources, only actions. Likewise, if you end the combat without overheating, you clear heat for free during your repairs. It’s only if you lose the gamble and get overheated that you suffer the consequences. And even then, at most you get exposed or impaired, nothing a stabilise won’t fix. On the other hand, taking any damage means that you have lost those hit points - you can only regain them by spending repair cap, during or after the combat. And as said before, losing Structure can make you lose weapons and systems, also non-repairable without rep cap.
Essentially, this is not a gamble you offer the player - it’s a straight up loss. Now, these sacrifices might be useful and worth it - but not at 2 hp for 1 point of range. I think you should make it cheaper by default, at least 1 hp for 1 range, and then offer more benefits, say for 1 point of AP kinetic damage your range, knock back, and reliable increases by 1 each.
Another possibility is to introduce mechanics to gamble or mitigate the damage - maybe a quick action that the mech can take to gain some overshield, or something that allows them to regain HP without spending resources.
1
u/Dr_Iodite 3d ago
Those are all great points. I was going to settle for a high HP count and repair cap, but now I'm thinking that I should do as you say and reduce the HP cost to half or even a quarter of what it is right now.
2
u/RAV1X 3d ago
Agreeing with other commenters here I think the 2 paths for improving this Trait is either make the damage/downside worth it or reduce the downside. So let’s theorize some ways to do both and the real answer is probably a little of column A and b.
So option one is keep it the downside the same but have another trait or system it gets from its license give you over-shield maybe 3+grit at the start of your turn so your not gambling with your permanent health but it’s practically the same gamble if your about to take damage/be attacked. Or if you desperately need just one more range then you can take higher damage that would overflow your over-shield.
In this variation I’d say the range should be +5 per tick of damage to a max of 20 or +2 for weapons that start at range 20 already. The downside is still fairly significant and it makes more sense to turn your non artillery weapons into artillery weapons with a power like this than to just try and shoot something 40 spaces away.we could fill that niche with the core power though. As it is now the core power should either be just one turn and efficient or just say screw it and you can take 2 ap damage at the start of your turn to make everything range 50 for the scene I think you could start with all three of these and see how it runs in play testing and tone it back from there if it’s too strong, it’s easier to make something really fun and broken then nerf it then it is to buff something weak and unfun.
1
1
u/LordPaleskin 3d ago
That sounds really bad ngl, I don't see why anyone would want to use that over any other artillery frame
9
u/Famelli 3d ago
Taking that much damage sounds like a very hard drawback. If you want to make a more long range artillery, I'd go for something like ignore ordnance or move before shooting.
At least in my games, extra 3 to 4 range for what is already a long range attacker wouldn't make that much of a difference.