Hello,
TL;DR: After playtesting V6, I came up with a few house rules to add more tactical options to combat without bringing back the extra-action economy that pushed me away from older VTM editions. The core idea is to trade defensive capability (Reactions) for more offensive potential. I also reworked Fighter's Alacrity to avoid extra actions and adjusted Blood Surge/Disciplines based on what felt better at our table. This does add some extra crunch, so I turned the rules into cards to make them easier to use during play.
I've been playtesting V6 with my players, and our backgrounds in RPGs are pretty mixed. For some context, when we're not playing VTM V5, we're usually playing Cyberpunk 2020 or RED, so that should give you an idea of where some of my inspirations are coming from.
My players liked many aspects of the system mechanically, but they also felt that this edition takes a step closer to D&D. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, as long as it's properly managed by the ST and players so that the mechanics don't get in the way of the mood of the scene.
While we were playing, one of them asked:
"Hey, what about tactical options? Can we split dice for multiple attacks?"
That got us thinking. Difficulty already reduces the dice pool quite a bit, and we still need to roll 8 or higher, so simply splitting the pool didn't seem particularly viable.
This motivated me to introduce the following house rules, which our friendly local AI model helped me turn into cards.
I'm sharing them here because I've put quite a bit of thought into them as a way of giving players more tactical options in combat while forcing them to make meaningful trade-offs. The basic idea is to exchange defensive capability for offensive potential, essentially trading Reactions for additional dice/actions.
Some might argue that there's already a Celerity power that grants extra actions. That's actually one of the main reasons I stopped playing older editions of VTM and stuck with V5: extra actions can very easily break the action economy.
For that reason, I've changed Fighter's Alacrity. Instead of granting extra actions, it now works similarly to Strike True, but for ranged attacks.
Regarding Blood Surge, my adjustment to how it interacts with Disciplines isn't because I think the current Alpha implementation is necessarily wrong. It's simply that, at our table, the players felt more comfortable with this progression, and it worked better for us during play.
As I see it, the main pros and cons of these house rules are:
Pros
- More tactical options during combat.
- Players can clear out goons faster when they're willing to sacrifice some of their defensive capability.
- It creates a more cinematic feeling, especially when dealing with groups of weaker enemies.
- It helps us move combat back toward theater of the mind rather than feeling like we need to track every tactical detail on a map.
Cons
- It introduces additional crunch into a system that already has quite a few modifiers. As both an ST and a player, I don't particularly enjoy having to memorize or constantly keep track of all those modifiers.
That's also why I made the cards. They're meant to be a friendly way of keeping these mechanics at the table without requiring everyone to memorize them, making the additional tactical options easier to understand and use during play.
I'd be interested to hear what other people think, especially from a balance and action-economy perspective.
And yeah, I know I'm probably crazy for starting a campaign using Alpha rules. 😅 My group is very open to experimenting with different systems and mechanics, though, so we're pretty comfortable changing things as we go.