NEWS

Sixth World Companion released

  • 10 Replies
  • 603 Views

Aria

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
« on: <05-15-22/0438:08> »
Just got mine from DriveThru… been looking forward to this one and a first glance looks promising  ;D
Excel Cha Generators <<CG5.26>> & <CG6.xx> v28

Typhus

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
« Reply #1 on: <05-15-22/0959:30> »
Been reading through it.  It seems very well done.  There's a ton of stuff in there, and some really good ideas.   

MercilessMing

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
« Reply #2 on: <05-15-22/1242:30> »
Kudos to the optional rule team.  Overall great quality, several gems in here.  Thank you for listening to the community even when they're yelling at you.

Even though I'm not going to use "You Can't Dodge Bullets", it's not because I don't like the idea.  I would prefer this to opposed defense rolls for ranged combat.  It's just too big a change to implement into my game, and there are too many edge cases undeveloped.  Was this an early draft of 6e's combat? 

Another thing I haven't seen discussed yet is whether people feel like blast damage was nerfed too much, if all the optional rules affecting it were implemented.  DR converts blast damage to stun at a rate of 1 per 4 pts of DR and the Cover Shields Blasts rule reduces it at a rate of 2 per level of Cover.  Both are significant reductions, and I like them both.  Are area Combat spells also categorized as Blast damage?  That would be useful info.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4570
« Reply #3 on: <05-15-22/1538:23> »
Kudos to the optional rule team.  Overall great quality, several gems in here.  Thank you for listening to the community even when they're yelling at you.

Thanks! The errata team wrote that chapter. It was fun, and of course it's gratifying to see people enjoying it.

Quote
Even though I'm not going to use "You Can't Dodge Bullets", it's not because I don't like the idea.  I would prefer this to opposed defense rolls for ranged combat.  It's just too big a change to implement into my game, and there are too many edge cases undeveloped.  Was this an early draft of 6e's combat? 

A magician generally shouldn't spill their secrets.  But... that actually came about from the original idea of finding an optional rule to reflect that small targets *ought* to be harder to hit than larger targets.  Ever notice that a bug drone is just as easy a target to shoot as a tank is?  In toying around with bringing size-based thresholds into opposed attack tests we eventually just embraced thresholds outright.  In playtesting the rule, we found it actually feels pretty skirmish wargame-y, so maybe players of those games might like the rule.  As you say, it *is* a fairly profound deviation from how SR has usually handled attacks as opposed tests.

Quote
Another thing I haven't seen discussed yet is whether people feel like blast damage was nerfed too much, if all the optional rules affecting it were implemented.  DR converts blast damage to stun at a rate of 1 per 4 pts of DR and the Cover Shields Blasts rule reduces it at a rate of 2 per level of Cover.  Both are significant reductions, and I like them both.

THIS issue, otoh, goes all the way back to 6e's pre-release. The wompin' potential damage from grenades is really out of synch with the rest of 6e's damage values, yet it's never been errata'd. And that's not because we didn't want to, nor was it because we weren't allowed to.  We really couldn't come up with a SIMPLE way to address everything we wanted to fix. For example the DE and FR versions of the rules simply nerfed the maximum DV down from 16 to 12.  We didn't do that for a couple reasons, but one I'll mention here is because lowering from 16 to 12 doesn't change the problem of you being automatically dead, with nothing you can do about it, if a second grenade is lobbed your way in the same combat round.  The various optional rules you see in Companion regarding nerfing blasts are all based on early errata ideas. The problem with them, as you saw, is if you use them all, then it may actually go too far in "over-nerfing" blasts. Once we got word we were going to have the opportunity to do this chapter, we quit trying to solve the problem of overly-lethal blasts by offering a menu of options in Companion.  Use them all if you really want to tone down Mr Grenade-throwing Specialist... or pick and choose which you like for your own taste.  That's exactly how the entire chapter is meant to work!

Quote
Are area Combat spells also categorized as Blast damage?  That would be useful info.
No, they are not blasts.  For starters, they do not scatter as they did in 5e... indeed you defend against them!  Furthermore, 6e spell damage doesn't tend to get really out of hand. Using these rules against fireballs and whatnot would given an unneeded kick in the junk to spellcasters.  If you want to nerf MagicRun, there are options elsewhere in this chapter designed to do exactly that...
« Last Edit: <05-15-22/1540:39> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

HeWhoRuns

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 2
« Reply #4 on: <05-15-22/2110:42> »
Anyone notice that Agents are included in they hacker gear?  Thought there weren't agents in 6e?  Can someone point me in a direction if I be wrong?

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4570
« Reply #5 on: <05-15-22/2130:12> »
Anyone notice that Agents are included in they hacker gear?  Thought there weren't agents in 6e?  Can someone point me in a direction if I be wrong?

They will be in the upcoming Matrix book.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

HeWhoRuns

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 2
« Reply #6 on: <05-15-22/2330:40> »
Perfect, thank you!

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 747
« Reply #7 on: <05-16-22/0936:40> »
No, they are not blasts.  For starters, they do not scatter as they did in 5e... indeed you defend against them!  Furthermore, 6e spell damage doesn't tend to get really out of hand. Using these rules against fireballs and whatnot would given an unneeded kick in the junk to spellcasters.  If you want to nerf MagicRun, there are options elsewhere in this chapter designed to do exactly that...

TBH, Combat spells is the least nerf-worthy part of the whole "Magicrun" issue. At my tables, I actually buffed them a little bit by making the Amp options less drain-intensive!

The biggest problems stem from Summoning/Spirit Balancing and some powerfull spells in other categories, like Mind Control. And for the Spirits, the updated allergies list does help a little bit with the Hardened Armor, and the Spirit Doors rule help with their high Mobility and Accessability. What I love about both is that they also add mucho flavour and encourage creative thinking and roleplaying! IMO, the whole Summoning part should be much more about these, and also further emphasize the differences between traditions instead of the current UML streamlining/steamrolling. Pre-4th Edition, Shamans had to summon spirits from the local environment, and mages had to actually fill a bathtub with water to summon a "Water Elemental" from it. The Spirit Doors rule is a step back to these times - and in this case, that´s a step in the right direction, at least for me!

Another optional rule that just rebalances Hardened Armor as a whole (f.i. only half of the rating as Autohits or even total conversion into Bonus Soak dice) would have been appreciated, though. But hell, it´s my table. I don´t need an official "OK" for the houserules I alread use  ::)
« Last Edit: <05-16-22/0939:38> by Finstersang »

MercilessMing

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
« Reply #8 on: <05-16-22/1003:50> »
My group and I all loved the idea of Spirit Doors but it's another one we won't be using because it changes the dynamic so much, it's a whole setting change.  We'd have to rethink how magical security works.  It also makes Possession traditions more attractive and they can be problematic already.  These questions can be answered, it's just a big change for us to make mid-campaign.

MercilessMing

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
« Reply #9 on: <05-16-22/1738:55> »
Hey I've forgotten to mention this, but the PDF is TOO BIG.  The CRB is just under 50 MB, this is like 110MB.  It's too big even to preview on Google drive, which is pretty important to me.

Typhus

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
« Reply #10 on: <05-16-22/1826:45> »
Quote
TBH, Combat spells is the least nerf-worthy part of the whole "Magicrun" issue. At my tables, I actually buffed them a little bit by making the Amp options less drain-intensive!

I was thinking 1:1 ratio would be better.  What did you go with?