Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: easl on <05-02-19/1409:25>
-
Has Catalyst come out with any substantive info on system/rules changes that we'll see in SR6? Anyone have scoop to share? Or is everything close-hold until June?
Just curious.
-
Nothing apart from the stuff mentioned in the podcast interview, so we know that but we already recapped things in the podcast topic.
-
Nothing formal from CGL other than the postings yesterday. There is a pretty good introduction (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WtcHfpf5SQU) to the new system on the Complex Action YouTube channel that might be worth taking a look at.
-
Cool thanks, I'll check out both.
-
Remember when D&D decided to simplify the system, over-corrected, and gave us 4th edition?
Here's hoping Shadowrun 7th edition finds the balance.
(I'm an old and jaded gamer, my snark is born from experience.)
-
Dnd 4th was the most awful thing I have ever witnessed in my preferred gaming (dnd 1st ed through 5th, world of darkness games 2nd through revised, warhammer fantasy role-play 1st and 2nd edition, shadowrun 5th edition, star wars saga edition, pathfinder). I don't care for 5th ed much either, save enjoying that the numbers are smaller than 3.0/3.5.
-
I am probably weird, and know what I would like wont happen. I've grown tired of rolling buckets of d6's, multiple times to resolve one action. I'd love a system that could resolve to hit and damage with one roll..two at most. Same thing with magic. And quicker matrix combat--the marks requirement for hacking needs to go, makes matrix combat so slow. A new characteristic system, with more granularity than the traditional he limited 1-6 baselines. I'd settle for a d10, percentile, or d20 based. Not going to see it probably.
And no, don't say try Shadowrun anarchy. I hate the Cue system.
-
I am probably weird, and know what I would like wont happen. I've grown tired of rolling buckets of d6's, multiple times to resolve one action. I'd love a system that could resolve to hit and damage with one roll..two at most. Same thing with magic. And quicker matrix combat--the marks requirement for hacking needs to go, makes matrix combat so slow. A new characteristic system, with more granularity than the traditional he limited 1-6 baselines. I'd settle for a d10, percentile, or d20 based. Not going to see it probably.
And no, don't say try Shadowrun anarchy. I hate the Cue system.
Well, marks are gone in SR6. Soak rolls are now Body-only, so a low amount of dice. So you're already getting less massive rolling.
-
I follow this summary but it is still edited back and forth
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZPN1-6xfGD9SV6xD85eaJIWoNq0NcsBdE3CQI8s5rJU/edit#heading=h.h701ncsxs7zi
By the description I do wonder what armor now does except denying the shooter edge?
-
Can't watch to see it soon. :D
-
[/quote]Well, marks are gone in SR6. Soak rolls are now Body-only, so a low amount of dice. So you're already getting less massive rolling.
[/quote]
But....but....No Shooka Shooka Boom.... :(
-
Well, marks are gone in SR6. Soak rolls are now Body-only, so a low amount of dice. So you're already getting less massive rolling.
[/quote]
But....but....No Shooka Shooka Boom.... :(
[/quote]
It sounds like they will be large pools for everything else still. Agility 10+6 skill+misc still tossing 18+dice for shooting. Your dodge can still be 7 reaction+5 intuition+combat sense 6 or whatever.
-
The main thing I have doubts about, is a single initiative pass for everybody, but extra minor actions per pass for people with boosted reflexes. That's probably the biggest change to the initiative system ever, and I've always felt the initiative system was perhaps the most defining feature of the Shadowrun system.
It seems to me this can go one of two ways: either it ends up as a big nerf to street samurai because they get less actions, or you get the SR2 problem where they get all their actions first before anyone else gets a chance to do anything. Possibly both.
I get that the initiative system is heavy and complex, but it's also deeply rooted in Shadowrun. It's evocative and cool. I already didn't like the predictable number of initiative passes of SR4; a bit of unpredictability and randomness is cool.
I have no strong opinion on any of the other proposed changes, but this one I really don't like, the more I think about it. Can someone sell me on it?
-
Your extra passes often had little to no value, while extra actions are always useful. And the worst you can get is 1 extra Major if you have enough base dice. So it avoids a few problems of SR2 and SR4/5. Plus your roll won't cost you extra actions. It also solves Movement and Suppressive Fire wonkyness with multiple passes.
-
The changes to Initiative may put off the fans of high-speed Streetsams and Gun-Kata Adepts, but they will also make Combat easier to resolve and keep everyone else more engaged. I also like it that Movement is now an Action, many players are confused by a system where movement is disconnected from Actions. I just hope that there will be enough usefull
Simple Minor Actions to make having just 2 or 3 of them profitable for mundanes. A conversion Rate of 4 Minor to 1 Major is really steep, I wish they would go with 3... Maybe a thing for a houserule.
My biggest fear is about this Edge thing. It could be just the right thing in theory, but there´s just too many signs in the air right now that the devs have completely overdone it with that mechanic.
-
Your extra passes often had little to no value, while extra actions are always useful.
I don't understand how you mean this. Extra passes provide extra actions, surely that's useful? But in 3e and 5e, they only provide those extra actions after everybody else had a chance to do something. In 6e, like in 2e, they get the extra actions before everybody else does.
And the worst you can get is 1 extra Major if you have enough base dice.
That's another thing: it becomes predictable, just like it was in 4e. I like the idea that you can get lucky or unlucky about how many passes you get.
So it avoids a few problems of SR2 and SR4/5.
I'm fine with reducing the impact of high initiative, but it feels to me like this change throws away one of the most defining aspects of the Shadowrun system.
Plus your roll won't cost you extra actions.
What do you mean? Is there a roll that would otherwise cost you extra actions?
It also solves Movement and Suppressive Fire wonkyness with multiple passes.
I'll grant you that. It's certainly a lot easier.
-
Your extra passes often had little to no value, while extra actions are always useful.
I don't understand how you mean this. Extra passes provide extra actions, surely that's useful?
You said you worry about Street Sams being nerfed because they get less actions. But the extra Passes in 5e often happened after most of a fight was already settled. So usually, they did not have much of an added value. Now you get more tactical options instead.
As for the roll: In 5e, if you rolled poorly, you'd lose out on an extra pass. In 6e, your actions are based on dice, not on the roll.
-
You said you worry about Street Sams being nerfed because they get less actions. But the extra Passes in 5e often happened after most of a fight was already settled. So usually, they did not have much of an added value. Now you get more tactical options instead.
I don't worry about nerfing street sams, I worry about them getting all their extra actions before anyone else has the chance to act. Though I admit that problem is less severe if they can only get one extra attack.
How long the fight lasts depends a lot on the nature of the fight. Open shooting at short range is over in seconds, but when there's more cover and moving around, it can last a lot longer. I suppose the question is whether street sams should shine more in prolonged combat or in really short fights.
As for the roll: In 5e, if you rolled poorly, you'd lose out on an extra pass. In 6e, your actions are based on dice, not on the roll.
I see it the other way around: if you roll well, you get an extra pass. But you don't always get it; it adds a level of unpredictability and excitement, in my opinion. If that's not what people want, why were the predictable initiative passes of 4e rolled back? (From what I remember, the 5e initiative system is practically identical to the one from 3e.)
-
In 5e combat rarely made it past the second phase, so Street sams just got to go first.
I thought it was a need too at first, but with combat being deadlier now with armor not soaking damage they probably won’t need the extra phases.
But to be honest I think 3e/5e’s initiative system was the best so far
-
In 5e combat rarely made it past the second phase, so Street sams just got to go first.
I thought it was a need too at first, but with combat being deadlier now with armor not soaking damage they probably won’t need the extra phases.
But to be honest I think 3e/5e’s initiative system was the best so far
I guess people design fights differently than I do. But in my games, fights almost always take multiple combat turns.
I'm worried about the math on this and the soak rolls.
On this side 4 minors to one major means you need wired 2 to get 2 majors. This can get bad especially without free actions, but I assume you need to draw a gun(major normally, minor with a quick draw), maybe move a bit, grab cover etc. So really you just have 1 major which a unaugmented nobody has as well, which seems like a really crappy use of essence and money. Mage with his zippy spell at least takes the draw gun aspect out of the equation and has a better chance to go straight to attacking.
Soak rolls sounded okay at first with the Ares predator doing 3, but if an assault rifle does 5 and 7 or 8 with a burst(apparently more than a assault cannon lame) it doesn't take many net hits to get you to 10 boxes. Rolling 3 dice means a lot of one shot kills by taking the fairly easy action burst fire. And it kind of doesn't matter how experienced you are, not that I foresee people getting experienced. It feels like the GM is going to have to constantly make bad decisions for the opposition in order for the PCs to survive. Sure I could do auto fire but bullets cost money so we are under orders to only use single shot.
The math on the surface seems really bad.
-
I am not sure I have a problem with the initiative system as of yet. If the minor actions are worth doing then having a lot of them becomes a meaningful choice. If they're not useful then anything short of having 4 to get your second major will be a waste. Overall the concept is fine with me currently.
In early editions, we had the problem of a sam taking 3-4 actions before anyone else could go basically stealing actions from others who would often not even get a single action in combat. Then it changed to where the extra action came after everyone had a chance to go and we then had wasted actions as the combat would be over before the character could use the actions he paid to get. In this system, it seems to be trying to get you somewhere in the middle. I want to have a high enough initiative to go first because that, in my mind, is one of the benefits of playing a Sam. but since I can only get a max of 2 major actions I am not stealing actions from others like in early editions.
All in all, I just hope that we have meaningful minor actions so it seems like we have a choice to do those overtaking the extra major action and giving those how only want a minor boost of +1 or +2 initiative dice things to do with them so they are not wasting actions. In the Actual play, it seemed like there was not a lot of minors for the decker to do so he chose to not go VR because he would be wasting actions and there was no point. This tells me that the minor action may not be meaningful enough and that is the only thing I am worried about in the system but I will have to wait to see more when the rules drop for the rest of us.
On another note, the Rules PDFs should be released by now. Having a small group of people trying to figure out the rules while the rest of us take the rules out of context with limited information is not good for the moral of the community. Instead, put the rules up for sale and start making money on the edition. this will not change the number of sales of core books and PDFs that you will sell and those who only buy PDF will do just that and those who want a printed core book will still buy that.
Releasing now also has the benefit of everyone now figuring the rules out and finding errata to get ahead of the errata game. That's just my 2 cents.
-
I think you will find it ok, there are 22 universal minor actions, 12 of which are actions that will most useful for the combat focus types (ie street sams)
During playtesting I found with my group that yes it nerfs the swired street sams a bit on the offense but offers a good bit of tactical choices. For example the runner with 4 minor actions can move, take aim, actively dodge, and attack multiple targets or other combinations
-
Product announcement should happen today, but I recall QSR is planned for June and 6e for August. I'm going to assume the print runs are already ongoing so errata now is too late for first printing, however they do have an errata process ready to go so the delay won't be as bad as with 5e.
Banshee, does Full Defense still exist? Is it a Minor or a Major? *puppy-eyes to get spoilers*
-
yes Full Defense still exist but it is a major action but there are multiple minor interrupt type actions that can be used defensively including some counterattack options ... I just can't post the exact details here :)
-
I think you will find it ok, there are 22 universal minor actions, 12 of which are actions that will most useful for the combat focus types (ie street sams)
During playtesting I found with my group that yes it nerfs the swired street sams a bit on the offense but offers a good bit of tactical choices. For example the runner with 4 minor actions can move, take aim, actively dodge, and attack multiple targets or other combinations
I'll wait and see, but even a minor nerf for sams seems bad to me. As is in 5E, they barley shown in their field outside a couple very specific builds.
-
I am not sure I have a problem with the initiative system as of yet. If the minor actions are worth doing then having a lot of them becomes a meaningful choice. If they're not useful then anything short of having 4 to get your second major will be a waste. Overall the concept is fine with me currently.
I have some serious thematic issues with it at the very least, it may work mechanically. But without wired people feeling wired, is it shadowrun?
-
In 5e combat rarely made it past the second phase, so Street sams just got to go first.
I thought it was a need too at first, but with combat being deadlier now with armor not soaking damage they probably won’t need the extra phases.
But to be honest I think 3e/5e’s initiative system was the best so far
I guess people design fights differently than I do. But in my games, fights almost always take multiple combat turns.
I suspect it's largely a matter of play style and type of encounter. If it's just open, little cover, heavy weapons, and little else to do than kill the other guy, then fights are over within seconds, which is realistic. When it's a more tactical fight, with lots of cover, darkness, no idea how many enemies there are, sneaking around, looking for them, taking a good position and that sort of thing, it obviously takes a lot longer.
I think you will find it ok, there are 22 universal minor actions, 12 of which are actions that will most useful for the combat focus types (ie street sams)
During playtesting I found with my group that yes it nerfs the swired street sams a bit on the offense but offers a good bit of tactical choices. For example the runner with 4 minor actions can move, take aim, actively dodge, and attack multiple targets or other combinations
Using more minor actions might actually be a good thing. Too often the focus seems to be on just putting as much lead in the air as possible, and people find they lack sufficient actions to also take cover. So I guess wired street sams will be able to do both while others have to choose whether they want to take cover or aim before they shoot.
Although if everybody has at least a major and two minor actions, that's already more generous than the current complex or two simple actions.
I have some serious thematic issues with it at the very least, it may work mechanically. But without wired people feeling wired, is it shadowrun?
Well put. I think that's my main concern about this change.
-
I am not sure I have a problem with the initiative system as of yet. If the minor actions are worth doing then having a lot of them becomes a meaningful choice. If they're not useful then anything short of having 4 to get your second major will be a waste. Overall the concept is fine with me currently.
I have some serious thematic issues with it at the very least, it may work mechanically. But without wired people feeling wired, is it shadowrun?
A subtle but important point is that Free actions are gone. All the little stuff costs one of your finite actions. Having lots of non-attack actions even if you only have one attack action is an advantage that's easy to overlook.
Sure, there's no getting around that the initiative-jackers will get less attacks per combat turn. But I agree with the others who argued upthread that even though they suffer, they don't really suffer *much* and it's all for the betterment of the game. Ever complain about the decker taking too long to hack? the Sammie resolving his third, fourth, and fifth passes before anyone else gets to do anything is the same thing.
-
So going to a maximum of two attacks from a system that generally started with at least 2 is a huge loss, combined with the loss of free actions and 6e appears to be a disaster for pc action economy, and believe me those who will suffer most from this will not be the “initiative jacker”. Try to put a good face on it however you like, but claiming that 6e is “7.5 crunch” and then saying we are specifically fighting min/maxing pretty clearly shows the priorities of 6e. None of it looks good for player from the system side so far.
-
So going to a maximum of two attacks from a system that generally started with at least 2 is a huge loss
5e only allowed 1 attack per Initiative Pass period, not at least two. Yes, maybe it's less attacks per Combat Turn, but with only 1 Initiative Score the difference only really matters when it comes to Toxins and Drugs. But hey, it's allowed to be overly dramatic.
-
So going to a maximum of two attacks from a system that generally started with at least 2 is a huge loss
5e only allowed 1 attack per Initiative Pass period, not at least two. Yes, maybe it's less attacks per Combat Turn, but with only 1 Initiative Score the difference only really matters when it comes to Toxins and Drugs. But hey, it's allowed to be overly dramatic.
Call it turns or rounds as you prefer, it doesn't change the point, Players action economy will be a fraction of what it was in all past editions.
-
Players action economy will be a fraction of what it was in all past editions.
I fail to see how.
Anyway. Let's look at 3 players.
A: X+1d6: Rolls 12
B: Y+3d6: Rolls 26
C: Z+4d6: Rolls 31
SR5:
IP1: C acts. B acts. A acts.
IP2: C acts. B acts. A acts. (Assuming A didn't take a -2 penalty by now.)
IP3: C acts. B acts.
IP4: C acts.
Reroll. C got 4 attacks, B 3, A 2. That's assuming the fight lasts this long.
SR6:
CT1: C has 1M, 5m, can trade to have 2M, 1m and attack 2x. B can trade all Minors, or keep them for stuff. A cannot trade.
CT2: C has 1M, 5m, can trade to have 2M, 1m and attack 2x. B can trade all Minors, or keep them for stuff. A cannot trade.
<repeat ad infinitum>
C got 4 attacks, B 2~4 (depending on if B needs a Minor for something), A 2. Let's assume B took Cover once, so scores 1 attack in CT1, then 2 in CT2. Then in the end both still have the same amount of attacks as in SR5.
-
It's called Game Theory Michael. When players have to make more rolls, ever roll increase their chance of over all failure.
Combats in past editions ended in one turn for a reason. When players have less attacks, their will be more turns. Ergo the player will be more likely to lose. Player C in past would able to clean up in pass 3 and 4. Preventing the need for CT2. The occurrence of CT2 is the very heart of the issue. So as soon as you add CT2 you made my point for me.
Further now player will never get more then two attacks. So if they start with 2 there will be no growth. Which many people have said they like.
-
I think that what you do in a turn is the meat of things when as Michael is pointing out, in my opinion, what should be looked at is what you do in a combat.
SR6 seems to give you more actions and things to do in a combat.
We are probably getting hung up on what we do in a turn and not looking at the full picture.
-
5th edition a Street Sami with a typical 3 actions would down 3 Mooks up to rating 3 in a turn and take nothing to a few stun in return. 6th edition doesn't seem that is going to be the way it goes. Too much incoming fire for too long, eventually your Defense test will fail you. And dropping 3 targets in 3 seconds doesn't seem likely unless the Multi-Target rules are much more effective.
It's not terrible, all a GM needs to do is remove some bad guy tokens. But the trope of a Street Sami taking on a dozen gangers seems unlikely in 6th edition from what we've seen at this point.
Naratively it certainly seems like a reduction in relative combat ability both in time spent to eliminate opponents and number of opponents you can handle. Again, not really a big deal as all a GM needs to do is pull a couple tokens off the board.
-
And as you fail to see how Michael i'll do the math explicitly for you.
SR5- We see 9 Actions we don't know how many frees the took. But could have taken several
SR6- maybe 5? so about 1/2. 5/9th literally, and of course Zero free actions. So yes a fraction,
I could also go through and 6 npc actions into that chat and do that math, but anyone who's paying attention understands the point, without me drawing the picture..
-
Call it turns or rounds as you prefer, it doesn't change the point, Players action economy will be a fraction of what it was in all past editions.
Well you can like it or not. Either way, it was explained in at least one of the podcasts I saw (iirc the one with Jason Hardy) that it was a deliberate design goal to make combat more interactive. Sammy going, sammy going, sammy going, sammy going.... that was decided to be an undesirable thing. The game design is actively intending to promote combats lasting more than 1 round.
Yes it's true that high initiative-jackers will have fewer actions than in 5e. However, that's NOT the same thing as initiative-jackers not having any more actions in combat than everyone else.
-
To be fair, 9/10 is a fraction.
-
With 4 Minors = an extra attack you've got a really clear threshold to hit for combat characters. If what has been revealed so far is accurate, Unarmed Combat with high Strength characters is going to be the new Meta. You'll probably want to hit 2 Majors and one Minor. Hit, move, Hit. At a minimum two Majors so once you do get stuck in you can take two swings a turn.
I kinda doubt 3 minors will be 75% as good as a single attack, so the second Major action will be really important. You'll see all kinds of shenanigans trying to hit that benchmark. Much like 5th edition Melee weapon builds, or Adept builds with assorted powers to activate. Complex action to attack, need simple actions to ready weapons or powers. Action economy starts eating into your damage output fast.
*shrug* It's all the same to me, something is going to be "The Best". But its certainly a significant change from 5e to 6e for combat characters so far.
-
I think any build I make will depend on combat drugs and a friendly mage to Antidote me. Assuming Blitz is gone. Because I tend to make poor Street Sams, which was survivable in 5e but will be a significant downside in 6e so it's combat drugs until a few hundred grand for Synaptic 3. Hey, maybe a mage can boost my initiative instead.
-
I think any build I make will depend on combat drugs and a friendly mage to Antidote me. Assuming Blitz is gone. Because I tend to make poor Street Sams, which was survivable in 5e but will be a significant downside in 6e so it's combat drugs until a few hundred grand for Synaptic 3. Hey, maybe a mage can boost my initiative instead.
Depends on what stacks and what options are in the CRB. If Initiative Augmentations are similar to 5e in Essence/Nuyen costs and drugs are still an exploitable mess, then Juicers all around. Which I honestly don't mind. I like the Combat Drug character for my Cyberpunk games.
-
The absolute best stacking decision they could have made would have been to do away with spells stacking with adept powers, mage combat sense with adept combat sense for example. with all of the other things they have done away with or altered that were not necessary in my opinion I will be quite disappointed if that one remained.
-
To be fair, 9/10 is a fraction.
Well I’m glad you figured out what a fraction is. Maybe next you can figure out how to fix this disaster.
SSDR it’s true whether or not I strick with SR is fairly irrelevant. But what does matter SSDR is if you try to white wash something you lose
Credibility, I’d say the same to Michael but I think that ship already sailed. What make 5e d&d so successful is the floor of effective build is very low. In other words it’s hard to make bad choices. Priority has always made it easy for players to make bad choices. Combine this with reduce action economy and your on the road to serious problems. What we say goes out to everyone, you like 6e fine. But don’t hide the flaws and don’t try to spin it.
-
I read the announcement email and came here to try and find out more. Once I saw this thread and what's been done to initiative and action economy, this pretty much suggests that this new 6E to be the final nail in the coffin of a once great game.
-
5th edition a Street Sami with a typical 3 actions would down 3 Mooks up to rating 3 in a turn and take nothing to a few stun in return. 6th edition doesn't seem that is going to be the way it goes. Too much incoming fire for too long, eventually your Defense test will fail you.
I don't see how this is the case. In SR5, after the street sam's first attack, all the mooks get to attack. In SR6, the street sam gets all his attacks first, and only then is it the mooks' turn. If the sam reliably kills a mook per attack, in SR5 he'd get attacked by 2 mooks, versus only 1 in SR6.
That's what I mean with the SR2 problem: fast street sams get all their attacks before anyone else gets a turn. It's less extreme than in SR2 because the street sam gets a maximum of 2 attacks rather than 3 or maybe 4.
-
To be fair, 9/10 is a fraction.
To be fair, 10/9 is a fraction, but I'm not being helpful.
I am really interested to see how Mystic Adepts are handled. I hope they roll back from 5e where they are magicians who moonlight as adepts and go back to every other edition's variable levels of adeptness versus mageness. I would prefer that they are done well in an advanced book than mishandled again in the core book. Here's hoping.
-
I am really interested to see how Mystic Adepts are handled. I hope they roll back from 5e where they are magicians who moonlight as adepts and go back to every other edition's variable levels of adeptness versus mageness. I would prefer that they are done well in an advanced book than mishandled again in the core book. Here's hoping.
All I want is to play a mystic adept who has watched way too much Dragon Ball and thinks he's a Saiyan. I need.....what? 4 spells for that? Lightning Bolt, Lightning Ball, Flight and Giant Monkey Form.
-
Yes it's true that high initiative-jackers will have fewer actions than in 5e. However, that's NOT the same thing as initiative-jackers not having any more actions in combat than everyone else.
They get fewer relative attacks. But it sounds to me that they have flexibility that other PCs are going to envy. They can move in, then swing, then turn the reactor on Quade, then move out, all before the mage is says "I, uh, throw a powerball." But if they don't need to do all that, they get the choice to swing twice instead, which the mage simply won't be able to do.
I'm reserving judgement, but it sounds to me like in SR6, wired folks might still be king of combat through superior tactics, rather than king of combat through attack flurrying.
-
5th edition a Street Sami with a typical 3 actions would down 3 Mooks up to rating 3 in a turn and take nothing to a few stun in return. 6th edition doesn't seem that is going to be the way it goes. Too much incoming fire for too long, eventually your Defense test will fail you.
I don't see how this is the case. In SR5, after the street sam's first attack, all the mooks get to attack. In SR6, the street sam gets all his attacks first, and only then is it the mooks' turn. If the sam reliably kills a mook per attack, in SR5 he'd get attacked by 2 mooks, versus only 1 in SR6.
That's what I mean with the SR2 problem: fast street sams get all their attacks before anyone else gets a turn. It's less extreme than in SR2 because the street sam gets a maximum of 2 attacks rather than 3 or maybe 4.
Sure but it’s looking like all there actions is 1 attavk action in most cases.
Wired 1. 1 combat action
Wired 2 2 possible combat actions but only if you don’t need to do a single minor action like move in to hit them with their spurs or grab cover
Wired 3 if it’s just 1 minor action you need you get 2 combat actions.
Maybe they have cyber called something like reaction optimizer that lets you get a major for less minors. But as is your kick ass output as a sam seems pretty lame.
-
What make 5e d&d so successful is the floor of effective build is very low. In other words it’s hard to make bad choices. Priority has always made it easy for players to make bad choices. Combine this with reduce action economy and your on the road to serious problems. What we say goes out to everyone, you like 6e fine. But don’t hide the flaws and don’t try to spin it.
Interesting take on it. I was actually thinking the reverse - that evening out the action economy between different builds is going to allow many more combat-effective builds. I guess we will have to see! Though maybe this is a tomato-tomahto issue; one person's "yay, my face doesn't have to hide behind the street sam while he rocks combat" is another person's "boo, the face no longer has to hide behind me while I rock combat."
-
Sadly when it comes to systems questions like these, what ever the designers intent the min/maker will always min/max whatever the new system limits are. The people that end up suffer are those who don’t know systems newbies, those who just don’t have any interest in the system: the group of folks who in 5e think a primary dice pool of 8 is fine. When combat goes longer those not built for combat die first. As game theory tells us they will. There was never an issue with setting initiative limits but it’s going directly impacted how things play out. 10 gangers will probably be a major threat in 6. Where they would be warm up in 5. Guns maybe less powerful but is almost nonexistent. 6e will be radically different and not to benefit of the players.
-
Yes it's true that high initiative-jackers will have fewer actions than in 5e. However, that's NOT the same thing as initiative-jackers not having any more actions in combat than everyone else.
They get fewer relative attacks. But it sounds to me that they have flexibility that other PCs are going to envy. They can move in, then swing, then turn the reactor on Quade, then move out, all before the mage is says "I, uh, throw a powerball." But if they don't need to do all that, they get the choice to swing twice instead, which the mage simply won't be able to do.
I'm reserving judgement, but it sounds to me like in SR6, wired folks might still be king of combat through superior tactics, rather than king of combat through attack flurrying.
Minor note: 1 Move action per turn max. But they also can take cover and call a shot and whatever.
-
They get fewer relative attacks. But it sounds to me that they have flexibility that other PCs are going to envy. They can move in, then swing, then turn the reactor on Quade, then move out, all before the mage is says "I, uh, throw a powerball." But if they don't need to do all that, they get the choice to swing twice instead, which the mage simply won't be able to do.
I'm reserving judgement, but it sounds to me like in SR6, wired folks might still be king of combat through superior tactics, rather than king of combat through attack flurrying.
I suspect you will soon discover regardless of attempted spin that's not at all correct. What we took for granted in 5e, and had many more actions to accomplish will now be restrict and costed in 6e. No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again. That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion). Movement in 5e is independent of all other actions and as far as we know it appears to be even more limited in 6e. With elimination of free actions, those things that were previously taken for granted will now be rolled into minor actions, and what is currently a simple action will most likely become minor actions as well. So now ALL actions will carry an action economy cost. Their elimination of complex and simple action into Attack actions and Minor actions. Isn't going to magically add to your list of possible tactics. In fact it will choke your options. What worse is it will almost certainly lead to wasted minors, as when you have to take 1 of those 4 minors to do something you will then lose your second attack and probably not have a use for the other 3 minors, which is even worse for player action economy.
This means longer fights, and all those issues I have previously raised.
Keeping in mind Dynamic Initiative was sold as a positive feature in 5e. 6e is flipping that, however how truly static it is, is actually very questionable as if you consult their list of Edge uses you will see it includes an initiate bonus.
-
No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again. That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion).
What? NPCs play by the same rules as PCs. Comparing high initiative PCs with low initiative PCs is entirely relevant to comparing high or low initiative NPCs. There's nothing about this that inherently benefits NPCs more than PCs, all that matters is the difference between high initiative characters and low initiative characters, regardless of whether they're played by players or not.
And as I pointed out, with the new system, very high initiative characters can actually get more attacks in before low initiative characters finally get a turn, compared to the current system. Even a high initiative character can get multiple attacks against a nearly as high initiative character before the second one can respond, which is arguably even worse than the SR2 problem, where this would only happen against opponents with at least one initiative pass less.
I also worry about it feeling less like Shadowrun. But I do not worry about this benefiting NPCs more than PCs.
-
I suspect you will soon discover regardless of attempted spin that's not at all correct. What we took for granted in 5e, and had many more actions to accomplish will now be restrict and costed in 6e. No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again. That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion).
That´s nothing I´m too worried about, TBH. In previous Editions, NPC were either wired up or turned inot clay pidgeons after the first Initiative pass. Also, compared to 5th Edition, that one additional Major Action a wired PC can get actually means a lot now: In 5th Edition, any semi-competent Combatants could reliably acquire 2 Initiative passes, with a 3rd (and very rarely a 4th) for the really fast characters. Sammies with a second Major will go from a ratio of 3/2 to 2/1 Attacks against slower opponents.
Movement in 5e is independent of all other actions and as far as we know it appears to be even more limited in 6e.
Movement being turned into an Action is a good idea, honestly. From my experiences, many players take it for granted that it works this way, even many veteran players kept making choices under the wrong assumption that Movement is part of the Action Economy.
With elimination of free actions, those things that were previously taken for granted will now be rolled into minor actions, and what is currently a simple action will most likely become minor actions as well. So now ALL actions will carry an action economy cost. Their elimination of complex and simple action into Attack actions and Minor actions. Isn't going to magically add to your list of possible tactics. In fact it will choke your options. What worse is it will almost certainly lead to wasted minors, as when you have to take 1 of those 4 minors to do something you will then lose your second attack and probably not have a use for the other 3 minors, which is even worse for player action economy.
This means longer fights, and all those issues I have previously raised.
That´s my concern as well, but your assumptions kinda work against themselfes here: Free Actions getting turned into Minor Actions lessen the chance that you will have to waste minors and make ID enhancements profitable even before hitting the magic 4 Minor threshold.
No question: This new system will be highly dependable on the number of usefull Minor Actions that you can take. If it´s all just situational stuff like reloading and everything impactfull gets turned into a Major Action, Players will find themselfes wasting Actions a lot (or desperately searching for Minor Actions to optimize their Action economy). I´ve heard somewhere (hopefully wrong, though...) that, f.i., drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action. No doubt, that would be a terrible choice with this new system...
I will probably houserule the Conversion rate to be 3 Minors into 1 Major at my tables, though. If the other wacky stuff in SR6 like the magic origami armor doesn´t totally put me off, that is ::)
Keeping in mind Dynamic Initiative was sold as a positive feature in 5e. 6e is flipping that, however how truly static it is, is actually very questionable as if you consult their list of Edge uses you will see it includes an initiate bonus.
I´m wondering if they will also include an option to convert Edge into an additional Minor ???
Would make +2 ID enhancements more valuable, as you are just one Minor Short for a second Attack.
If they don´t include it, that´s surely another idea for a Houserule.
-
I´ve heard somewhere (hopefully wrong, though...) that, f.i., drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action. No doubt, that would be a terrible choice with this new system...
That would be hilarious, optimized teams would consist of Mages and Unarmed builds. Turn one, Increase Reflex Mage blast stuff, Punchy builds punch stuff, everyone else draw a weapon. Turn two Fast Mages and Fast Punchy builds mop up. Last bad guy standing surrenders.
I would think ready a weapon would be a Minor, but who knows.
-
It sounds like something that could be a Major since it's a Simple. Maybe some stuff lets you turn it into a Minor.
-
I´ve heard somewhere (hopefully wrong, though...) that, f.i., drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action. No doubt, that would be a terrible choice with this new system...
That would be hilarious, optimized teams would consist of Mages and Unarmed builds. Turn one, Increase Reflex Mage blast stuff, Punchy builds punch stuff, everyone else draw a weapon. Turn two Fast Mages and Fast Punchy builds mop up. Last bad guy standing surrenders.
I would think ready a weapon would be a Minor, but who knows.
They could have got the rules wrong. But in play thing stated it was a major but can be turned into a minor with QuickDraw stuff.
-
drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action.
From what we have seen in the actual play this is the case. This however leaves room for fear and qualities to affect the action economy in very meaningful ways. For example a QuickDraw holster probably makes this a minor action.
-
While we really won’t know until we see the full system I’m not optimistic about the action economy it doesn’t sound like it feels like augmented humans vs sometimes unaugmented. Or feel like shadowrun. I’m solid with one pass per turn to speed things up and so the face gets a turn. But that pass should be more impressive than this sounds if your reflexes are enhanced.
Especially with the loss of free actions. You don’t feel sped up because you did a bunch of invisible minor actions. Hey I aimed and called a shot. Yeah slightly more effective. But it’s just a bit more damage. It’s not gunning down 4 people in 3 seconds or even shooting the same person 4 times.
I’d of preferred something for one pass systems like you still have some free actions. You get a number of simple actions but they can compound into bigger actions. Like shoot person 1 simple. Shoot dude multiple times 2+ actions. Give bonus dice and make one roll. First shot hits rolled. Second shot hits rolled -1 hit etc. Another action can be shoot multiple targets. Those last two can be combined. Have each spell have a different number of actions required. Manabolt maybe 1 action while fireball might be 3. If you don’t have enough actions in a turn you can finish the spell in the next turn.
How many actions you get and the costs of the actions would be what play tests would be for. Though I’d make spells be the weakest method for multiple actions.
-
I was around when we had that kinda action economy. When a Sam would gun down the combat before you could even go if you where not initiative heavy. I don’t want to go back to that. It was a problem. I remembered GMing during those editions when you gunned down the party before most of them even had a chance to go. That’s why SR moved away from those systems.
If we use 1 pass then amount of majors needs to be limited.
-
I was around when we had that kinda action economy. When a Sam would gun down the combat before you could even go if you where not initiative heavy. I don’t want to go back to that. It was a problem. I remembered GMing during those editions when you gunned down the party before most of them even had a chance to go. That’s why SR moved away from those systems.
If we use 1 pass then amount of majors needs to be limited.
They are. You can at most get a second at the expense of four Minors.
-
Two main things I want to know:
1) Can hackers go back to staying in the van, so they can concentrate on owning the building, and we can get rid of 'everything is hackable by default because we felt bad about kicking hackers out of the van'?
2) Are Technomancers still stuck in the cell with Bubba the Love Troll bending them over with sandpaper condoms and ghost pepper sauce for lube?
-
Two main things I want to know:
1) Can hackers go back to staying in the van, so they can concentrate on owning the building, and we can get rid of 'everything is hackable by default because we felt bad about kicking hackers out of the van'?
2) Are Technomancers still stuck in the cell with Bubba the Love Troll bending them over with sandpaper condoms and ghost pepper sauce for lube?
1. well honestly as long as they had the right links they could always stay back ... but while they can do that if they want most deckers will be more effective if they stick with their team most of the time, and since I replaced the mark system with a simple access tier system they can be immediately effective in just about any given situation.
2. no ... technomancers didn't get as much love as I wanted to give them due to space limitations in the book, they are definitely matrix powerhouses.
-
Two main things I want to know:
1) Can hackers go back to staying in the van, so they can concentrate on owning the building, and we can get rid of 'everything is hackable by default because we felt bad about kicking hackers out of the van'?
2) Are Technomancers still stuck in the cell with Bubba the Love Troll bending them over with sandpaper condoms and ghost pepper sauce for lube?
Bold of you to assume they haven't advanced to a lube much higher on the Scoville scale.
-
2. no ... technomancers didn't get as much love as I wanted to give them due to space limitations in the book, they are definitely matrix powerhouses.
In 5E TMs usually had 3 ways of doing a Matrix thing. Thread a CF, Order a Sprite, or just Hack it. And they had to pay for all three of those things because Threading and Sprites both had gaps that couldn't be covered (Until Kill Code came out).
Couple that with Living Persona Limits, and less access to dice pool Augmentations TMs were is rough shape for a long while.
If TMs have a Resonance action for everything in the Matrix, they're probably in good shape. *or* if they have access to similar but different Hacking Dice Pool buffs as Deckers, then they'll be fine as well.
In 5th, the Primed Charge CF caught TMs Hacking pools up to Deckers. But there was still a gap in Resonance actions, couldn't get a Mark on a Host (Technoshaman Stream/Greater Sprite was the only way), and File Protection / Data Bombs didn't have a RAW way around them unless the GM let the Editor CF bypass them (decent argument for allowing that). So essentially, you needed to still be a red-hot Hacker to handle Hosts and some files, and still needed Threading, Compiling, Registering, and a high Resonance. So you wound up behind on Skill points, SAPs, and Attributes compared to a Decker. It was a tough gap to overcome.
-
If you want your character him/her self to be the one doing the matrix deeds, then Technomancers are very difficult to build in a satisfactory manner. If you are content to run with the "optimal" build for them though, they are spectacular.
Our Missions Technomancer only really had compiling, computer, registering, and software for matrix skills. He relied on teamwork using sprites to handle pretty much anything matrix for us, while he ran around in hardened medium milspec armor with a diagnostics boosted monofilament whip vreeming the world. It was extremely effective.
-
If I´d have to say anything about it (which I don´t, I can only bitch around from the stand), Complex Forms should be much more direct in influencing technology. Instead of just "Matrix Action XYZ, but with a twist", some of them should be immediate effects with powers comparable to Spells as long as you are in a High-Tech environment: Power Shortages, Flickering Lights, Blackouts, Getting Invisible (or masked, or misplaced...) for Cameras and Sensors, Drones and Smartweapons misfiring, A Small EMP (dealing Matrix Damage in a certain Radius)...
-
No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again. That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion).
What? NPCs play by the same rules as PCs. Comparing high initiative PCs with low initiative PCs is entirely relevant to comparing high or low initiative NPCs. There's nothing about this that inherently benefits NPCs more than PCs, all that matters is the difference between high initiative characters and low initiative characters, regardless of whether they're played by players or not.
And as I pointed out, with the new system, very high initiative characters can actually get more attacks in before low initiative characters finally get a turn, compared to the current system. Even a high initiative character can get multiple attacks against a nearly as high initiative character before the second one can respond, which is arguably even worse than the SR2 problem, where this would only happen against opponents with at least one initiative pass less.
I also worry about it feeling less like Shadowrun. But I do not worry about this benefiting NPCs more than PCs.
NPC are going to out number pcs in SR. This is a fact of the game, inherent to the concept. Initiative has meaning but action economy is more important. Everything seen to date shows that pcs won’t be dropping enemies as they did before. A character takes two attacks before the enemy goes is fine. If they are smart they will focus down on one target and remove it. But as far as soak goes pc that get are far more likely to take damage. That means it’s worse for npcs to get attacks off. Add in the edge options that greatly increase glitch likelyhood regardless of pool size and suddenly you have GMs who can turn a simple gang fight into high probability of pc injury or possibly even loss. Now sure some GMs will follows Hobbes’ advice but I’m betting many more will attempt to run as they always have and will be shocked when half or the whole table of PCs ends up dead.
-
No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again. That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion).
What? NPCs play by the same rules as PCs. Comparing high initiative PCs with low initiative PCs is entirely relevant to comparing high or low initiative NPCs. There's nothing about this that inherently benefits NPCs more than PCs, all that matters is the difference between high initiative characters and low initiative characters, regardless of whether they're played by players or not.
And as I pointed out, with the new system, very high initiative characters can actually get more attacks in before low initiative characters finally get a turn, compared to the current system. Even a high initiative character can get multiple attacks against a nearly as high initiative character before the second one can respond, which is arguably even worse than the SR2 problem, where this would only happen against opponents with at least one initiative pass less.
I also worry about it feeling less like Shadowrun. But I do not worry about this benefiting NPCs more than PCs.
NPC are going to out number pcs in SR. This is a fact of the game, inherent to the concept. Initiative has meaning but action economy is more important. Everything seen to date shows that pcs won’t be dropping enemies as they did before. A character takes two attacks before the enemy goes is fine. If they are smart they will focus down on one target and remove it. But as far as soak goes pc that get are far more likely to take damage. That means it’s worse for npcs to get attacks off. Add in the edge options that greatly increase glitch likelyhood regardless of pool size and suddenly you have GMs who can turn a simple gang fight into high probability of pc injury or possibly even loss. Now sure some GMs will follows Hobbes’ advice but I’m betting many more will attempt to run as they always have and will be shocked when half or the whole table of PCs ends up dead.
Even when you get used to it and make the “right” size encounters the players will seem far far less impressive. Well except mages.
-
How is watching the streetsam taking action after action, minor or major, any different from watching the hacker do his thing in previous editions?
Forget `more/fewer attacks` ... you won´t be able to even do anything. Even taking cover or running away.
You get to swoon at the sams/adepts doing their thing. And farming edge from people not in cover to maybe boost their initiative advantage even further.
That´s neither `empowering` nor `more interactive`. It´s SR2 all over again. It sucked.
-
Two main things I want to know:
1) Can hackers go back to staying in the van, so they can concentrate on owning the building, and we can get rid of 'everything is hackable by default because we felt bad about kicking hackers out of the van'?
2) Are Technomancers still stuck in the cell with Bubba the Love Troll bending them over with sandpaper condoms and ghost pepper sauce for lube?
Did the whole business of how a TM can't be part of a PAN unless they buy an overpriced as drek quality get dragged out behind the woodshed and shot? Because when you have a matrix character that can't secure their own damn gear, much less the party's gear, you know that someone has severely fucked up the works.
1. well honestly as long as they had the right links they could always stay back ... but while they can do that if they want most deckers will be more effective if they stick with their team most of the time, and since I replaced the mark system with a simple access tier system they can be immediately effective in just about any given situation.
2. no ... technomancers didn't get as much love as I wanted to give them due to space limitations in the book, they are definitely matrix powerhouses.
-
Did the whole business of how a TM can't be part of a PAN unless they buy an overpriced as drek quality get dragged out behind the woodshed and shot? Because when you have a matrix character that can't secure their own damn gear, much less the party's gear, you know that someone has severely fucked up the works.
Supposedly PANs / WANs are no longer a part of the game.
I base this on the collected info doc that states that there is no longer any master / slave matrix relationships.
EDITed to add:
"Master/slave networks have been removed."
From this document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZPN1-6xfGD9SV6xD85eaJIWoNq0NcsBdE3CQI8s5rJU/edit#).
-
I think that removing the master/slave is possible a good thing. I know there was some confusion when it came to this especially when it came to Hosts and device slaved to them and visibility of those devices and.... :)
It confused me at least and if they cleared that all up I will be very happy with the new edition.
-
How is watching the streetsam taking action after action, minor or major, any different from watching the hacker do his thing in previous editions?
Forget `more/fewer attacks` ... you won´t be able to even do anything. Even taking cover or running away.
You get to swoon at the sams/adepts doing their thing. And farming edge from people not in cover to maybe boost their initiative advantage even further.
That´s neither `empowering` nor `more interactive`. It´s SR2 all over again. It sucked.
So at most PC will have 2 attacks, further we don't actually know the initiative totally will even begin to look like. So it's in no way 2nd repeated. As for farming edge we know you can't gain more then 2 points of edge per turn, so that's really not really relevant ether.
Magic remains very much to be seen Shinobi, Drain appears to have been effectively doubled, and amping being +2 is going to make pushing it up fairly dangerous quickly. There are far to many unknowns and back and forth on magic to make a useful argument as yet. We don't know if there is a drain roll, we don't know what sort of damage results from drain, last time I checked we don't even really know what spells damage codes are or what elemental effects are.
We don't even know if Mages can get more then one action as yet.
-
We don’t know the some of that magic in that the real play thing could have been wrong. We know there is a separate drain test like normal. We know mages can get multiple minor actions likely more than a street sam it’s a lot of drain but her character has focused concentration 3 so could sustain 3 spells without penalty. Again they could have it wrong. But magic initiative, combat sense and improved bod all day seems pretty potent.
Commanding a spirit minor action. Spells major but I don’t think you have to ready a spell.
-
2. no ... technomancers didn't get as much love as I wanted to give them due to space limitations in the book, they are definitely matrix powerhouses.
So Banshee, while you're here, could I ask a somewhat provocative two questions?
1. What matrix things do technos do better than deckers?
2. What matrix things do deckers do better than technos?
I think, ideally, SR should have a solid answer to both. And not a self-referencing one like "summon sprites!", but an answer in terms of matrix actions the rest of the team cares about, like hacking into systems, defeating security, obtaining information, etc. IOW, personally I'm hoping that neither technos or riggers are the poor stepchildren of the other. That both have a 'that's cool' place in a party.
-
Sadly when it comes to systems questions like these, what ever the designers intent the min/maker will always min/max whatever the new system limits are. The people that end up suffer are those who don’t know systems newbies
You may be right about SR, as its hard for me to think of a variant to the rules that would be sufficiently shadowrunny to make fans of the system like it, yet effectively deal with minimaxing. Having said that, there are certainly other systems that effectively address minimaxing and allow for design of several-dimensional PCs that are still 'as good as can be' at combat.
As a simple, partial example, SR 5's karma vs. chargen point difference is part of what creates such a significant drive towards 'tall stack' builds. This in turn encourages more one-dimensional PCs and stovepipes them into specific team roles. Games where experience and chargen points are essentially the same don't have that 'push' on the players. Sure you still want high pools, but without that, improving ones' skills in important secondary ways like sneak or con or perception at least aren't bad point allocation choices. Different example: limits were an attempt to deal with players maxing one or two dice pools at any cost, though IMO it mostly failed at that.
10 gangers will probably be a major threat in 6. Where they would be warm up in 5. Guns maybe less powerful but is almost nonexistent. 6e will be radically different and not to benefit of the players.
IIRC, in 6 you can target multiple people with a single burst or auto attack, which might make up some for dropping high init characters from 3-4 attacks down to 2. But I doubt very much any game system - including SR 6 - can stop GMs and play groups from picking whether the bad guys consist of "many tissue thin grunts lead by a few tough hombres" or "NPCs mostly built like PCs". Or even switching between those two models. It's certainly the case that a GM in SR5 could make a group of 10 gangers be tough to beat. The "challenge per enemy" or per enemy group has always been something the GM can control in order to move the game along or make combat more high tension...depending on what the play group thinks is most fun. "The benefit to the players" is not whether 1 NPC or 10 is a real threat; the benefit is what the players find to be fun - which can sometimes be 1, or 10, or 100, depending on the player, the group, heck it can even change from scene to scene.
-
Attacking multiple targets is still a split pool thing I’m the play video. Without a dice pool penalty vs bursts that’s a rough attack. Though edge may make it possible.
A interesting possibility since enemies can attack as a group would be if grouped enemies could be attacked as one. Kind of feng shui take out all the goons you want rule.
-
You may be right about SR, as its hard for me to think of a variant to the rules that would be sufficiently shadowrunny to make fans of the system like it, yet effectively deal with minimaxing. Having said that, there are certainly other systems that effectively address minimaxing and allow for design of several-dimensional PCs that are still 'as good as can be' at combat.
10 gangers will probably be a major threat in 6. Where they would be warm up in 5. Guns maybe less powerful but is almost nonexistent. 6e will be radically different and not to benefit of the players.
IIRC, in 6 you can target multiple people with a single burst or auto attack, which might make up some for dropping high init characters from 3-4 attacks down to 2. But I doubt very much any game system - including SR 6 - can stop GMs and play groups from picking whether the bad guys consist of "many tissue thin grunts lead by a few tough hombres" or "NPCs mostly built like PCs". Or even switching between those two models. It's certainly the case that a GM in SR5 could make a group of 10 gangers be tough to beat. The "challenge per enemy" or per enemy group has always been something the GM can control in order to move the game along or make combat more high tension...depending on what the play group thinks is most fun. "The benefit to the players" is not whether 1 NPC or 10 is a real threat; the benefit is what the players find to be fun - which can sometimes be 1, or 10, or 100, depending on the player, the group, heck it can even change from scene to scene.
Fighting Min/Max is really waste of time, why dev even bother focusing on it is just silly, they are just placating a tragically out dated section of the fan base. Min/Maxer are more helpful to system then harmful, all you have to do you is errata the holes they find, it's not actually complicated. Just look Pegasus errata early and often there is no problem. Over and over again we saw terrible choices made in the first couple books for 5e, almost all of which got rolled back the later books. How 6e handles it remains to be seen.
Sure Granularity is always an important question, Depth vs Breadth is always a classic conflict for any game. There was plenty of room to be solid at combat and be solid at contribute to legwork in 5e, or combat/face, combat/decker were all very possible depending on your pool tolerances. As you said Karma is best for this, when you have extremely fine control then you get exactly the result you want. 5e kinda dropped ball on this. Adding it in Run Faster meant players just saw it as to little karma to make it worth while. Now all that said, multi-dimensional characters don't in any way require multiple rolls, it just means making a PC that isn't flat as the paper it's written on. The old AK-97 example is the one they love to point to, and it works well. But just because a character around shooting doesn't mean it's bad concept it just needs to be fleshed out, made into something more complex that an FPS bot. But 6e isn't looking better Priority has always been a farce when it came to making good choices. I can't tell you how many times i have seen Skill A end up being an epicly poor choice.
Yeah they have reported multi-target though as with a lot of things their are contradictory reports, the early reports said you could do it, but that it cost you hit chance. If the system is such that damage is very low, spreading out low damage is only going to make it still lower damage, with the greater chance of failure. I can't show that for sure, as we have no idea what defense pools are actually going to look like. It remains to be seen what Profession rating looks like 6e. But my hopes are not high.
-
2. no ... technomancers didn't get as much love as I wanted to give them due to space limitations in the book, they are definitely matrix powerhouses.
So Banshee, while you're here, could I ask a somewhat provocative two questions?
1. What matrix things do technos do better than deckers?
2. What matrix things do deckers do better than technos?
I think, ideally, SR should have a solid answer to both. And not a self-referencing one like "summon sprites!", but an answer in terms of matrix actions the rest of the team cares about, like hacking into systems, defeating security, obtaining information, etc. IOW, personally I'm hoping that neither technos or riggers are the poor stepchildren of the other. That both have a 'that's cool' place in a party.
to be honest I tried to keep them on as even a keel as possible mostly because in 5E most people felt that technos were very underpowered compared to deckers and therefore not worth playing.
with that being said deckers will generally come out the gate at character generation being a bit faster since the techno speed bump requires submersion, deckers will also usually be more skill focused so should have a slight edge in hacking and defense but technos will have the definite edge in directly effecting things either through complex forms or their sprites.
-
For the record Banshee it was not that players “felt” that TMs were under powered; they were epicly bad. It took literally years to make even the most basic fixes. The many errors included things as basic as the submersion karma cost being wrong. I’m not even going to discuss the total uselessness of all complex forms. The whole archetype was a wreck, for the majority of 5e. It wasn't some kind mood the players were in. It was bad editing and major over reaction to the end of 4e. We can go look the errata if you feel like I need to prove the point.
-
whether it was perceived or actual doesn't matter at this point so there is no need to argue over it .. which we each have well founded reasons for it
BUT ... I can say I heard the complaints and tried to fix them and hopefully people are happy with what I did and even more hopefully I get a chance to expand (and correct if needed) sooner rather than later
-
whether it was perceived or actual doesn't matter at this point so there is no need to argue over it .. which we each have well founded reasons for it
BUT ... I can say I heard the complaints and tried to fix them and hopefully people are happy with what I did and even more hopefully I get a chance to expand (and correct if needed) sooner rather than later
That's appreciated.
Can you speak to the flavor of Technomancers in 6e?
I have felt in 5e, they were awakened, but not called out as awakened. In 4e (and more so in 3e and earlier), I felt that they still retained a less magical and more AI-connected and tehcnical-based flavor. In 5e, everything seemed to be more magic flavored.
Secondarily, how are Technomancers as riggers?
-
for simplicity sake in keeping the rules streamlined we kept the mechanics in line with 5E in that they work much like magic system does overall rather than have a new system just for technomancers ... so complex forms function like spells and sprites function like spirits and in all other aspects TM's used the same mechanics as deckers
TM's as riggers is still blocked by submersion if you want the full effect you need the echoes but there are complex forms and sprites both that will let you more or less control drones and/or vehicles
-
Banshee,
First, thanks for your responses. I'm looking forward to reading.
for simplicity sake in keeping the rules streamlined we kept the mechanics in line with 5E in that they work much like magic system does overall rather than have a new system just for technomancers ... so complex forms function like spells and sprites function like spirits and in all other aspects TM's used the same mechanics as deckers
In terms of mechanics, that seems very reasonable and effective.
TM's as riggers is still blocked by submersion if you want the full effect you need the echoes but there are complex forms and sprites both that will let you more or less control drones and/or vehicles
That's a bit more concerning. I was really hoping the system would get away from the "for a techno to hack, you're going to need these *extra* things..." and go more towards something of a 'parity out the gate, but each has different strengths and weaknesses' model.
But, still looking forward to it!
-
TM's as riggers is still blocked by submersion if you want the full effect you need the echoes but there are complex forms and sprites both that will let you more or less control drones and/or vehicles
That's a bit more concerning. I was really hoping the system would get away from the "for a techno to hack, you're going to need these *extra* things..." and go more towards something of a 'parity out the gate, but each has different strengths and weaknesses' model.
But, still looking forward to it!
they can hack just as good as deckers right out of the gate it is the rigger aspect that takes more development ... deckers can load up on certian traits or programs that will give them an edge in some ways but the TM's get to play with complex forms and sprites that can directly effect anything matrix related directly
-
If anything I wanted rigger to be harder. In 4e when being a rigger was a $2000 piece of ware and .5 essence it being easy worked. 5e it’s expensive for a decker to pull it off and would be hard to do both well.
I’d of liked if at start you decided if you were a rigger or decker style technomancer. With multiple submersions roughly equal to the costs of doing both for a decker to add the other 1/2.
-
TM's as riggers is still blocked by submersion if you want the full effect you need the echoes but there are complex forms and sprites both that will let you more or less control drones and/or vehicles
they can hack just as good as deckers right out of the gate it is the rigger aspect that takes more development ... deckers can load up on certian traits or programs that will give them an edge in some ways but the TM's get to play with complex forms and sprites that can directly effect anything matrix related directly
So... Unless it is much easier to "dual-class" Decker / Rigger, Technos are still the better choice over a Rigger.
I was hoping the Techno was forced to give back some of the Rigger's stuff after ganking her in a dark alley... At this time it still reads as if Riggers are trashed on.
-
One thing I hope for is essence loss being more punishing to the magically active. Bioadepts should be a story choice not a go to power choice. When the bang for your buck of waring up is too good it messes with setting ideas of magic and tech not mixing well, and magically active types not wanting to damage their magic.
-
Well Banshee you may feel it's not relevant, but to me if you're thought process is that TM didn't work in 5e b/c players "felt like they didn't work" vs recognition of the fact that TM was a failed Archetype for most of 5e. This is extremely relevant to how I see things going, any HR Professional or Industrial Engineer will tell you; Past behavior are strong indicators of future out comes.
I'm seriously looking for a reason to hope 6e isn't going to follow the TM example in 5e, the math thus far has me very concerned. You're free to dismiss me of course. I know gamers are always cranky about new editions, and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to engage about something they created; and I recognize NDA's have you locked down. I been there, I'm an engineer I design stuff ever day and review and release are both painful processes.
I have supported SR and the devs for a long time on here, I'd be happy to do it again. I and probably many others want a reason to believe 6e is going to be better then 5e. A couple streamers, some podcasts, and the army of Catalyst demo team agents aren't going sway my opinion, I've argued with these jokers for years. Math, fact or a good argument can change my mind. So to you why is 6e better? How is this an improvement over the edition that we have seen before? By all means skip the specifics but to your mind why is it better?
-
The math is the big concern. Game math is important to get right. Large swaths of 5e didn’t get the math right. We will have to see if they got someone on the team who is solid at game math this edition.
As an aside on the math. I’m not sure why I’d want my game math to be deadlier than 5e. I kind of want the pcs to survive being shot at. In 5e without some serious min maxing missions enemies frequently one shot the pcs.
-
So at most PC will have 2 attacks, further we don't actually know the initiative totally will even begin to look like. So it's in no way 2nd repeated. As for farming edge we know you can't gain more then 2 points of edge per turn, so that's really not really relevant ether. ...
Actually we do know how initiative will look like. `Not substantianally different` from where it is now.
And getting 2 attacks with grenades/shotguns/burst fire plus maneuvering and/or taking cover before anyone can react is pretty much to what we were accustomed in 2nd edition.
The idea that 2nd edition combat was totally fine and only started to suck when wired reflexes lvl 3 were involved is kind of weird. It sucked with lvl 2 ones just as well. Anything that degrades normal characters to mere cheerleaders sucks. The question of how much is rather academic, is it not?
Keep in mind that after your sam the hostile sam gets to go aswell. After that, the fight is probably already decided one way or the other. Before you even got a chance to take cover.
---------------------
for simplicity sake in keeping the rules streamlined we kept the mechanics in line with 5E in that they work much like magic system does
Not commenting on their competetiveness, but I got to say the fact that it was so symetrical to magic robbed both, technomancy and magic, of their status as something special.
`It´s another colour of magic, but in the matrix`, is a really bad pitch.
-
I never understood why it’s bad to be backup in a fight but every other role you can be a backup singer or not even a contributor and it’s a okay.
Dude spends all of his resources on fighting and everyone wants to be 90% of that for 1/10th the cost.
-
Dude spends all of his resources on fighting and everyone wants to be 90% of that for 1/10th the cost.
That's kind of the problem with minimax-driven games in a nutshell; players want and expect that if they build their pc towards being expert at one narrow thing, they'll be much better at it than any of the others. Which seems fair. OTOH, combat is such a regular occurrence in most rpgs that the GM is then faced with a choice: make the bad guys a challenge for the one pc and potentially gank everyone else, OR make the bad guys a challenge for the rest of the group and watch as they never really get to do anything because the one expert wipes the floor with them. So being the One True Combat Monster can have the side effect of making combat scenes unfun or problematic for everyone else.
What's the solution? Well there isn't one that's going to please everyone. A GM solution is to try and include scenes that let every PC shine at their own expertise. Many games limit the amount of expertise in one thing you can acquire out of the gate (SR's "max 6 skill" is sort of that, but it's a weak control - many other games control it stronger). Magic-including games often allow mages to achieve combat expertise via magic; "two ways to one result".
SR is particularly vulnerable to the expertise issue because of how you can layer four different things: attributes + skills + ware + drugs. (or ...+magic + drugs). How do solve? Should we bother? Dunno. But missions could probably set the standard for more balanced PC's as a priority, if it wanted, by scenario design.
-
That was imo the nice thing about the multiple passes. Enemy difficulty didn’t have to be about tough enough for the sam. As a street sam would shine by going more. Not necessarily by each time his going being better. Back in 3e everyone could have a 6 in skill and a smartgun link. If he doesn’t go more he’s going to have to go much better. Which actually does make enemies scary if you are trying to make them a challenge for the sam.
-
Actually we do know how initiative will look like. `Not substantianally different` from where it is now.
See what interests me about that, is right off you know you're not dealing with a reliable narrator, and that's been an issue that's remained constant across this whole process. "Initiative is gonna be the same", accept that action economy is totally different, movement is totally different, free actions are gone, and you know ware and maybe magic those things that were the biggest modifiers of initiative well they are now totally different. We know that some things adds minor actions, but we don't know how those things change your actual initiative score, we don't know if they modify the character's reaction. We were told initiative is static, but then edge give initiative modifier as the first option, are those bonuses stacking? Do they persist between rounds? Do Elemental effect still modify initiative? Can you still "Borrow" actions for defense? So saying we know what initiative will look like beyond starting at high number and going to zero, is a complete joke.
And getting 2 attacks with grenades/shotguns/burst fire plus maneuvering and/or taking cover before anyone can react is pretty much to what we were accustomed in 2nd edition.
The idea that 2nd edition combat was totally fine and only started to suck when wired reflexes lvl 3 were involved is kind of weird. It sucked with lvl 2 ones just as well. Anything that degrades normal characters to mere cheerleaders sucks. The question of how much is rather academic, is it not?
Keep in mind that after your sam the hostile sam gets to go aswell. After that, the fight is probably already decided one way or the other. Before you even got a chance to take cover.
As to the rest, I played 2nd and had lots of fun. It just comes down to how your table went about character generation. It's not like everyone couldn't have the taken same level of initiative boost in 2nd. Sure rolls would vary, but folks would then be in the range most of the time. Some people made the choice not to that but that was their choice. If you don't like the results of your choices, make different choices. It's not hard to make an agreement not to exceed specific amount of initiative boost.
-
See what interests me about that, is right off you know you're not dealing with a reliable narrator, and that's been an issue that's remained constant across this whole process. "Initiative is gonna be the same", accept that action economy is totally different, movement is totally different, free actions are gone, and you know ware and maybe magic those things that were the biggest modifiers of initiative well they are now totally different. We know that some things adds minor actions, but we don't know how those things change your actual initiative score, we don't know if they modify the character's reaction. We were told initiative is static, but then edge give initiative modifier as the first option, are those bonuses stacking? Do they persist between rounds? Do Elemental effect still modify initiative? Can you still "Borrow" actions for defense? So saying we know what initiative will look like beyond starting at high number and going to zero, is a complete joke.
We were talking about how high ini numbers might possibly get to check our hypothesis. If you consider it too bold an assumption that wired reflexes lvl 1 will give you an additional dice and maybe +1 or +2, (like they did for decades) then you are free to do so. But it looked pretty much like it on the stream.
As to the rest, I played 2nd and had lots of fun. It just comes down to how your table went about character generation. It's not like everyone couldn't have the taken same level of initiative boost in 2nd. Sure rolls would vary, but folks would then be in the range most of the time. Some people made the choice not to that but that was their choice. If you don't like the results of your choices, make different choices. It's not hard to make an agreement not to exceed specific amount of initiative boost.
Funnily enough such agreements were in use back then.
As was the practice not to allow deckers as player characters. (For very similar reasons, actually.)
Does that mean decking was just fine, too?
`Broken is fine as long everyone is doing it or a homebrew workaround is thinkable...` is not really a selling point for a ruleset.
-
See what interests me about that, is right off you know you're not dealing with a reliable narrator, and that's been an issue that's remained constant across this whole process. "Initiative is gonna be the same", accept that action economy is totally different, movement is totally different, free actions are gone, and you know ware and maybe magic those things that were the biggest modifiers of initiative well they are now totally different. We know that some things adds minor actions, but we don't know how those things change your actual initiative score, we don't know if they modify the character's reaction. We were told initiative is static, but then edge give initiative modifier as the first option, are those bonuses stacking? Do they persist between rounds? Do Elemental effect still modify initiative? Can you still "Borrow" actions for defense? So saying we know what initiative will look like beyond starting at high number and going to zero, is a complete joke.
We were talking about how high ini numbers might possibly get to check our hypothesis. If you consider it too bold an assumption that wired reflexes lvl 1 will give you an additional dice and maybe +1 or +2, (like they did for decades) then you are free to do so. But it looked pretty much like it on the stream.
I'm not interested in making assumptions. I don't question that the system will go from some larger number to zero, and I suspect they will modify initiative values, but over all it's Action economy concerns me more. As to streams thus far the streams they don't strike me reliable source at all. We don't know CRB rules vs Quick Start rules, or whatever preview rules set they were given. Further then that, even if was the CRB, two people can read the same paragraph and come away with completely opposite opinions on what that paragraph said. I have seen dozens of times on this board.
As to the rest, I played 2nd and had lots of fun. It just comes down to how your table went about character generation. It's not like everyone couldn't have the taken same level of initiative boost in 2nd. Sure rolls would vary, but folks would then be in the range most of the time. Some people made the choice not to that but that was their choice. If you don't like the results of your choices, make different choices. It's not hard to make an agreement not to exceed specific amount of initiative boost.
Funnily enough such agreements were in use back then.
As was the practice not to allow deckers as player characters. (For very similar reasons, actually.)
Does that mean decking was just fine, too?
`Broken is fine as long everyone is doing it or a homebrew workaround is thinkable...` is not really a selling point for a ruleset.
Making agreements on limitation in character creation is not homebrew. It doesn't change the rules in anyway, it simply defines limits to characters systematic outcomes.
Next imply I said something I didn't always ticks me off. I said I had fun playing 2nd SR and if you didn't have fun you should consider making different choices.
So to be clear I never 2nd SR was perfect. No system will ever be perfect. 2nd decker was an interesting subsystem and could be fun to play, yes it was basically a solo dungeon crawl and as such it could easily be disruptive to tables. Does that mean that it was bad? No. It simply mean if you don't want to disrupt your table you need account for it ahead of time or you didn't make tables that would be disrupted by it. Again that isn't homebrew, it's simple recognizing facts and adjusting play style accordingly.
An etherology game in 5e effectively requires Astral projection. You don't get mad about a street sam not being able to project, you just don't allow characters that can't astrally project if you're running an Etherology game.
Further better choices could be almost infinite numbers of things. Including not playing 2nd if you just can't adapted your game style to account for the system's flaws.
-
According to the Line developer.
Initiative will be a roll like in 5th and you will have 1 major and 2 minor actions.
Initiative is rolled once, but can be changed by using some actions (-) or using edge (+)
The number of dice you have will give you that number of extra minor actions (maximum minor actions 5).
You can trade 4 minor actions for 1 major action.
So it looks like outside of high level Spells/Powers/Wire reflexes 2+/ Etc. most players will only get one action per turn not the two people are claiming.
-
I don't know who you're referring to with 'unlike what people claim'? Isn't the whole debate about that high initiative boosting people can do that, starting at 2 extra dice?
Also, interesting about the 5 Minors max. Could you tell where you got that from? That's a bit disappointing because it means the fifth Initiative die literally only adds Initiative and that sounds weird.
-
Also, interesting about the 5 Minors max. Could you tell where you got that from? That's a bit disappointing because it means the fifth Initiative die literally only adds Initiative and that sounds weird.
I had heard form an official source that we are capped at 5 minors as well but I can not recall which podcast or post I had heard it from, sorry not more helpful.
My question though was: do we know we will have access to 5 initiative dice? I was assuming since the minors are +1 per die that we would be capped at 4 dice to get us to the 5 minor actions.
On the rest of the thread on how many actions we are getting one thing, I thought of yesterday was that we still don't have enough info to know how many equivalent actions we will get. We know we get 1 major and 4 minors become a major but if readying a weapon which is normally a major becomes a minor we suddenly have a way to access a third major by downgrading them to minors. Just a thought.
All in all, I still think it is too early to really tell what action economy will fully look like until we get our hands on the full core rules. Anything past what we know is speculation and assumptive.
-
I doubt that attacks will get downgraded to minors with the right thingy. But they may roll minors into majors like a charge attack or something.
-
We know we get 1 major and 4 minors become a major but if readying a weapon which is normally a major becomes a minor we suddenly have a way to access a third major by downgrading them to minors. Just a thought.
...huh? What do you mean a third Major? Where do you get that from?
-
We know we get 1 major and 4 minors become a major but if readying a weapon which is normally a major becomes a minor we suddenly have a way to access a third major by downgrading them to minors. Just a thought.
...huh? What do you mean a third Major? Where do you get that from?
I interpreted it as this piece of gear turns this major into a minor. effectively giving you more majors. Fictional clearly not in the game example. Shooting is a major action. Shooting with a smart gun with its wireless turned on is a minor action
-
Yes that is what I was trying to say. I know that drawing a weapon is a Major but a QuickDraw holster supposedly makes it a minor. So you get to do what would normally be a major but with one of your minors instead so this effectively gives you another major worth of action because of a price of gear you have.
I don’t think they would do this with an attack but I did here something about being able to spend edge to make an split without penalty. Don’t no what that penalty was but it may be another way to get more effective attacks.
-
Yes that is what I was trying to say. I know that drawing a weapon is a Major but a QuickDraw holster supposedly makes it a minor. So you get to do what would normally be a major but with one of your minors instead so this effectively gives you another major worth of action because of a price of gear you have.
I don’t think they would do this with an attack but I did here something about being able to spend edge to make an split without penalty. Don’t no what that penalty was but it may be another way to get more effective attacks.
An efficient way to use Multiple Attacks isn't the same as being granted extra Majors though. Just like in 5e Suppressive Fire doesn't mean you're getting extra attacks, or AoE spells. And I highly doubt we'll ever be able to do an attack as Minor since THAT would break everything.
-
The changes to Initiative may put off the fans of high-speed Streetsams and Gun-Kata Adepts, but they will also make Combat easier to resolve and keep everyone else more engaged. I also like it that Movement is now an Action, many players are confused by a system where movement is disconnected from Actions. I just hope that there will be enough usefull Simple Minor Actions to make having just 2 or 3 of them profitable for mundanes. A conversion Rate of 4 Minor to 1 Major is really steep, I wish they would go with 3... Maybe a thing for a houserule.
My biggest fear is about this Edge thing. It could be just the right thing in theory, but there´s just too many signs in the air right now that the devs have completely overdone it with that mechanic.
...[bold emphasis, mine] I have to agree, it puts one more layer into the mechanics that wasn't there before, sort of defeating the idea of streamlining ans players and GMs now have to allocate Edge (both base and acquired) and figure out what actions to use when, every turn. Don't like movement being an action, even D&D keeps it separate. Characters with little to no meat world initiative boosting (read technomancers and deckers) are going to end up eating grenades or AOE spells when one gets tossed, particularly as armour has no effect any more. I'm all for making the game more challenging, but not CGL's version of Paranoia.
-
The changes to Initiative may put off the fans of high-speed Streetsams and Gun-Kata Adepts, but they will also make Combat easier to resolve and keep everyone else more engaged. I also like it that Movement is now an Action, many players are confused by a system where movement is disconnected from Actions. I just hope that there will be enough usefull Simple Minor Actions to make having just 2 or 3 of them profitable for mundanes. A conversion Rate of 4 Minor to 1 Major is really steep, I wish they would go with 3... Maybe a thing for a houserule.
My biggest fear is about this Edge thing. It could be just the right thing in theory, but there´s just too many signs in the air right now that the devs have completely overdone it with that mechanic.
...[bold emphasis, mine] I have to agree, it puts one more layer into the mechanics that wasn't there before, sort of defeating the idea of streamlining ans players and GMs now have to allocate Edge (both base and acquired) and figure out what actions to use when, every turn. Don't like movement being an action, even D&D keeps it separate. Characters with little to no meat world initiative boosting (read technomancers and deckers) are going to end up eating grenades or AOE spells when one gets tossed, particularly as armour has no effect any more. I'm all for making the game more challenging, but not CGL's version of Paranoia.
They should just let people dodge grenades in some fashion without having to use a interrupt, just a standard defense test of some kind. Maybe penalty dice, maybe you can’t avoid it entirely but can just reduce the damage. It’s not like people are actually dodging bullets. They are making themselves a harder target. You can make a similar rational for area of effects. D&d has has saving throws for this kind of thing, so I don’t think reducing the effect through dodging strains gamers credulity.
Hell the idea you can interrupt and run 8 meters in .1 seconds is more far fetched to me. I don’t see many movie grenades in shadowrun where they bounce and land sitting around for 3 seconds. It’s airburst etc.
-
In 5e combat rarely made it past the second phase, so Street sams just got to go first.
I thought it was a need too at first, but with combat being deadlier now with armor not soaking damage they probably won’t need the extra phases.
But to be honest I think 3e/5e’s initiative system was the best so far
I guess people design fights differently than I do. But in my games, fights almost always take multiple combat turns.
I'm worried about the math on this and the soak rolls.
On this side 4 minors to one major means you need wired 2 to get 2 majors. This can get bad especially without free actions, but I assume you need to draw a gun(major normally, minor with a quick draw), maybe move a bit, grab cover etc. So really you just have 1 major which a unaugmented nobody has as well, which seems like a really crappy use of essence and money. Mage with his zippy spell at least takes the draw gun aspect out of the equation and has a better chance to go straight to attacking.
Soak rolls sounded okay at first with the Ares predator doing 3, but if an assault rifle does 5 and 7 or 8 with a burst(apparently more than a assault cannon lame) it doesn't take many net hits to get you to 10 boxes. Rolling 3 dice means a lot of one shot kills by taking the fairly easy action burst fire. And it kind of doesn't matter how experienced you are, not that I foresee people getting experienced. It feels like the GM is going to have to constantly make bad decisions for the opposition in order for the PCs to survive. Sure I could do auto fire but bullets cost money so we are under orders to only use single shot.
The math on the surface seems really bad.
..I agree. One of the things I came out of the live discussion last week with was that trolls will effectively rule the game. It sounds as if the character is not a buffed up troll he/she will likely become a customer for a fitted body bag. Just seeing what the group fire option for grunts alone did during the play test was scary (nearly slagging a fairly decent vehicle with handguns, crikey in 3E you needed something more powerful than an SMG to cause vehicular damage). Meanwhile PCs don't seem to have this option (even suppression fire doesn't exist any more, you have to use full auto and split your pool between targets).
Now I don't mind a bit more of a challenge now and then, but the potential for a high level of lethality as I saw sort of ruins enthusiasm for the game (which is why after several sessions, I quit playing Halo as I rarely ever could get clear of the drop ship and find cover before being dropped). May as well just play miniatures battles as I'm not into making up new characters with new backgrounds and personalities every couple weeks.
-
I think you will find it ok, there are 22 universal minor actions, 12 of which are actions that will most useful for the combat focus types (ie street sams)
During playtesting I found with my group that yes it nerfs the swired street sams a bit on the offense but offers a good bit of tactical choices. For example the runner with 4 minor actions can move, take aim, actively dodge, and attack multiple targets or other combinations
...so it now takes a minor action to dodge where it took no action before? I sense high PC body counts if that is so. OK let's go to the Decker who has 1 major and maybe 1 or 2 minor actions in the meat world.
During Missions play, I have seen a second adage to the "Geek the Mage First" which I refer to as "Geek the Decker/Technomancer" Next".
yes Full Defense still exist but it is a major action but there are multiple minor interrupt type actions that can be used defensively including some counterattack options ... I just can't post the exact details here :)
...so much for that Decker with a single full and maybe 2 minor actions in the meat world doing anything to contribute to a combat. In 5e, it was a declared interrupt action that lasted the entire combat turn and if you had multiple passes, you still had a chance to do something instead of just dodging bullets every combat turn.
-
crikey in 3E you needed something more powerful than an SMG to cause vehicular damage).
You went too far back.
In 5e a Hold Out pistol can reliably damage many stock vehicles. A hold out pistol is DV 6, with 1 Net Hit required to to even have a chance of triggering a Damage Resistance Test, makes it a minimum of DV 7.
Many stock vehicles have 6 Armor or less (let's take the Shin-Hyung as an example) meaning if the Hold Out pistol hits, it triggers a Damage Resistance Test against a minimum DV of 7. With 16 dice (stock Shin-Hyung has 10 Body, 6 Armor) the vehicle is very likely going to suffer at least 2 damage. And at 1425 Nuyen per box of damage repair, that is a repair bill of at least 2850 Nuyen. From a Hold Out pistol.
-
2. no ... technomancers didn't get as much love as I wanted to give them due to space limitations in the book, they are definitely matrix powerhouses.
In 5E TMs usually had 3 ways of doing a Matrix thing. Thread a CF, Order a Sprite, or just Hack it. And they had to pay for all three of those things because Threading and Sprites both had gaps that couldn't be covered (Until Kill Code came out).
Couple that with Living Persona Limits, and less access to dice pool Augmentations TMs were is rough shape for a long while.
If TMs have a Resonance action for everything in the Matrix, they're probably in good shape. *or* if they have access to similar but different Hacking Dice Pool buffs as Deckers, then they'll be fine as well.
In 5th, the Primed Charge CF caught TMs Hacking pools up to Deckers. But there was still a gap in Resonance actions, couldn't get a Mark on a Host (Technoshaman Stream/Greater Sprite was the only way), and File Protection / Data Bombs didn't have a RAW way around them unless the GM let the Editor CF bypass them (decent argument for allowing that). So essentially, you needed to still be a red-hot Hacker to handle Hosts and some files, and still needed Threading, Compiling, Registering, and a high Resonance. So you wound up behind on Skill points, SAPs, and Attributes compared to a Decker. It was a tough gap to overcome.
...my long running issue with TMs was survivability in the meat world. They were effectively "awakened" characters who like mages and adepts suffered losses to their primary abilities if they had any augmentations. However, unlike mages and adepts they didn't have access to spell and power buffs to make up for it. All they pretty much had to save their hoops when the lead started flying was armour (which in 6E has been effectively nerfed). As a TM's living persona was based off their Mental Attributes, Physical Attributes became secondary, if not dump stats, thus limiting how much physical protection they could wear as well making then "squishier" than even spell slingers) .
Supposedly TMs were an offshoot of the Otaku (there was even the quality Otaku to TM in Data Trails). In 3E Otaku not only received two pieces of headware (Datajack and ASIST module) but were encouraged to get additional cyber augmentations to help them survive the physical world (which did not negatively impact their Resonance, and in some cases actually enhanced their abilities). Unfortunately this was changed when Resonance was effectively likened to Mana in the Matrix.
-
NPC are going to out number pcs in SR. This is a fact of the game, inherent to the concept. Initiative has meaning but action economy is more important. Everything seen to date shows that pcs won’t be dropping enemies as they did before. A character takes two attacks before the enemy goes is fine. If they are smart they will focus down on one target and remove it. But as far as soak goes pc that get are far more likely to take damage. That means it’s worse for npcs to get attacks off. Add in the edge options that greatly increase glitch likelyhood regardless of pool size and suddenly you have GMs who can turn a simple gang fight into high probability of pc injury or possibly even loss. Now sure some GMs will follows Hobbes’ advice but I’m betting many more will attempt to run as they always have and will be shocked when half or the whole table of PCs ends up dead.
...that is my concern as well particularly with the Group attack option.
-
crikey in 3E you needed something more powerful than an SMG to cause vehicular damage).
You went too far back.
In 5e a Hold Out pistol can reliably damage many stock vehicles. A hold out pistol is DV 6, with 1 Net Hit required to to even have a chance of triggering a Damage Resistance Test, makes it a minimum of DV 7.
Many stock vehicles have 6 Armor or less (let's take the Shin-Hyung as an example) meaning if the Hold Out pistol hits, it triggers a Damage Resistance Test against a minimum DV of 7. With 16 dice (stock Shin-Hyung has 10 Body, 6 Armor) the vehicle is very likely going to suffer at least 2 damage. And at 1425 Nuyen per box of damage repair, that is a repair bill of at least 2850 Nuyen. From a Hold Out pistol.
However a Toyota Gopher (at least in 5E) has a 14 body and 10 armour (total of 24 dice) that little pop gun would probably just scratch the paint. Even a Predator would be hard pressed to cause enough damage to cripple it let alone totally slag it. However in the running combat with all the Ancients where they had the Grouped attack option using only Predators, they damn near killed it. I'm sorry but all 9 gangers maintaining control of their motorcycles in a running gun fight at 70 mph being that good of a shot stretches the sense of plausibility just a bit thin.
-
...so it now takes a minor action to dodge where it took no action before?
Dodge already cost you 5 Initiative so I'm not sure why you're claiming it didn't take anything.
sort of defeating the idea of streamlining ans players and GMs now have to allocate Edge (both base and acquired) and figure out what actions to use when, every turn.
If you can track damage and ammo, you can track Edge. Just use poker chips or anything for it and it's easy. If you already are declaring the entire game condemned, honestly I doubt you ever were going to actually give it a fair try.
-
Dude spends all of his resources on fighting and everyone wants to be 90% of that for 1/10th the cost.
That's kind of the problem with minimax-driven games in a nutshell; players want and expect that if they build their pc towards being expert at one narrow thing, they'll be much better at it than any of the others. Which seems fair. OTOH, combat is such a regular occurrence in most rpgs that the GM is then faced with a choice: make the bad guys a challenge for the one pc and potentially gank everyone else, OR make the bad guys a challenge for the rest of the group and watch as they never really get to do anything because the one expert wipes the floor with them. So being the One True Combat Monster can have the side effect of making combat scenes unfun or problematic for everyone else.
What's the solution? Well there isn't one that's going to please everyone. A GM solution is to try and include scenes that let every PC shine at their own expertise. Many games limit the amount of expertise in one thing you can acquire out of the gate (SR's "max 6 skill" is sort of that, but it's a weak control - many other games control it stronger). Magic-including games often allow mages to achieve combat expertise via magic; "two ways to one result".
SR is particularly vulnerable to the expertise issue because of how you can layer four different things: attributes + skills + ware + drugs. (or ...+magic + drugs). How do solve? Should we bother? Dunno. But missions could probably set the standard for more balanced PC's as a priority, if it wanted, by scenario design.
...the same happens in Missions as well. We have a few players that build such outrageously min maxed monsters, many of the rest of us often feel more like spectators rather than participants. Yeah we still get the rewards and contacts, but often feel pretty useless and wonder why we took the time out to attend the session. NT was expected to tone this down somewhat, but it really hasn't. Now I don't expect my characters to be the "star" of every mission (I generally build very solid support characters), but it would be nice to feel like they can make a worthwhile contribution once in a while. Even backup musicians get their chance to shine on stage.
-
However a Toyota Gopher (at least in 5E) has a 14 body and 10 armour (total of 24 dice) that little pop gun would probably just scratch the paint. Even a Predator would be hard pressed to cause enough damage to cripple it let alone totally slag it.
*Sigh* Alright, let's do the (5e) math.
Gopher, 14 Body. 10 Armor.
Predator, DV 8, AP -1 (meaning the Gopher can only treat its armor as 9.)
1 Net hit isn't enough to force a Damage Resistance Test, so we move it up to 2 Net Hits.
That sets the minimum DV of a successful attack at 10. With 23 dice, the Gopher is is gonna roll about 7 to 8 to Resist, meaning 2 to 3 boxes of damage from each successful Predator attack. As an aside, that works out to 2500 to 3750 Nuyen repair costs minimum per successful attack.
Now, you can debate whether or not the Ancients should have been hitting, that is another conversation entirely. Assuming they can hit though, damaging to slagging the Gopher (in 5e)? No problem what so ever.
-
...so it now takes a minor action to dodge where it took no action before?
Dodge already cost you 5 Initiative so I'm not sure why you're claiming it didn't take anything.
sort of defeating the idea of streamlining ans players and GMs now have to allocate Edge (both base and acquired) and figure out what actions to use when, every turn.
If you can track damage and ammo, you can track Edge. Just use poker chips or anything for it and it's easy. If you already are declaring the entire game condemned, honestly I doubt you ever were going to actually give it a fair try.
...Run For Your Life to avoid an AOE attack is an Interrupt Action which costs 5 Initiative. A "normal"(INT + REA) dodge during combat doesn't (or Missions has been doing it entirely wrong for years). You just lose one die from your base dodge pool for every time you try to avoid an incoming attack (in addition to any subtracted for the attacker's firing mode and wound effects).
-
However a Toyota Gopher (at least in 5E) has a 14 body and 10 armour (total of 24 dice) that little pop gun would probably just scratch the paint. Even a Predator would be hard pressed to cause enough damage to cripple it let alone totally slag it.
*Sigh* Alright, let's do the (5e) math.
Gopher, 14 Body. 10 Armor.
Predator, DV 8, AP -1 (meaning the Gopher can only treat its armor as 9.)
1 Net hit isn't enough to force a Damage Resistance Test, so we move it up to 2 Net Hits.
That sets the minimum DV of a successful attack at 10. With 23 dice, the Gopher is is gonna roll about 7 to 8 to Resist, meaning 2 to 3 boxes of damage from each successful Predator attack. As an aside, that works out to 2500 to 3750 Nuyen repair costs minimum per successful attack.
Now, you can debate whether or not the Ancients should have been hitting, that is another conversation entirely. Assuming they can hit though, damaging to slagging the Gopher (in 5e)? No problem what so ever.
...however even with the lower weapon damage rating of 3P, they managed to collectively inflict what sounded like more than half of the vehicle's total physical condition track (not sure what the the Gopher's body and armour is in 6E). In 5E maybe one or two might have hit as there would be modifiers for combat in a vehicle chase (which of course no longer likely exist as modifiers have been replaced by Edge).
-
...Run For Your Life to avoid an AOE attack is an Interrupt Action which costs 5 Initiative. A "normal"(INT + REA) dodge during combat doesn't (or Missions has been doing it entirely wrong for years).
Dodge LITERALLY is an Interrupt Action which costs 5 Initiative. Page 186. SR5 Core. So again, why are you claiming it's a free action in SR5 and thus a problem that it's a Minor in SR6?
-
In 5E maybe one or two might have hit as there would be modifiers for combat in a vehicle chase.
Depends on the GM. If the 5e GM made a single roll for the Ancients (to streamline rolls), and there were 5 Ancients (I did not see / hear the example you are referencing, simply guessing at the amount of gangers) and the GM got 2 Net Hits...
That would be about 10 to 15 damage against the Gophers 19 CM (in 5e).
Sounds about right from what I know of the intentions of 6e, and what you have said the example was.
It may "feel" different, it may even play different, but it sounds like 6e is right on par with 5e - for better or worse.
-
...Run For Your Life to avoid an AOE attack is an Interrupt Action which costs 5 Initiative. A "normal"(INT + REA) dodge during combat doesn't (or Missions has been doing it entirely wrong for years).
Dodge LITERALLY is an Interrupt Action which costs 5 Initiative. Page 186. SR5 Core. So again, why are you claiming it's a free action in SR5 and thus a problem that it's a Minor in SR6?
You are talking about different things. KK was/is under the impression that a standard defense test(which they are calling a dodge) is a action in 6e. You are talking about the action that gives bonus dice to your standard defense test.
-
Yes that is what I was trying to say. I know that drawing a weapon is a Major but a QuickDraw holster supposedly makes it a minor. So you get to do what would normally be a major but with one of your minors instead so this effectively gives you another major worth of action because of a price of gear you have.
I don’t think they would do this with an attack but I did here something about being able to spend edge to make an split without penalty. Don’t no what that penalty was but it may be another way to get more effective attacks.
An efficient way to use Multiple Attacks isn't the same as being granted extra Majors though. Just like in 5e Suppressive Fire doesn't mean you're getting extra attacks, or AoE spells. And I highly doubt we'll ever be able to do an attack as Minor since THAT would break everything.
fully agree I am not trying to say the attack is where you would get the effectively extra major. that is not what I am saying.
I am saying that taking a major and using a piece of equipment to make it a minor is a way to effectively get more majors. Technically they are minors now, but as an action, they were originally Majors and the equipment allows you to treat it as a minor.
Normally you could: draw a weapon(major), move(minor) and something else(minor).
With a quickdraw holster, you could: Draw a weapon(Major degraded to minor), take aim(minor), and Shoot the mage(Major).
Because of the quickdraw holster, you can basically, not actually, get to do two major actions. though you lose a minor the effect is now almost equivalent to a major.
From my understanding, downgrade an attack. I agree and though I don't have the book, I highly doubt that you will be able to downgrade an attack with as the other poster mentioned by using a smart link.
My unrelated contemplation was about multi-attack. I heard that there was an edge action that removed the penalty from multiple attacks. I don't know if this is the split dice penalty allowing you to make two full pool attacks against multiple targets, which I doubt, or if there was a penalty to attacking multiple targets that would be removed from dice pool before the split, which I think is what it is.
If it was the first one though that would mean you basically get multiple attacks in a single (major)attack action. I don't think this is what it is but I don't have the book so I wouldn't know.
I do though think you could build a character with a large enough pool that splitting will be an effective method to get an attack against two targets and therefore multiple attacks for the cost of 1 major. with the edge, you may also be able to add your edge to each pool since it is the same boost to make the multi-attack even better. once again this is just speculation since I don't have access to the book.
All in all, I think there will be many ways to manipulate the system to improve your action economy in interesting ways which to me sounds interesting enough to look into the system and give it a chance.
-
Avoidance has always been more effective then soak. My question is what is the action cost of an interrupt action?
Are they Majors? minors? Are borrowing them from next turn? It seems very odd to me that in game where they are clearly stomping to hell action economy. I feel sure interrupt are not going to be free.
As to Edge ever sense they said glitch on 2, it was already obvious edge was way out of hand. We haven't seen system stuff that bad sense the early days of StoryTeller.
-
I don't know who you're referring to with 'unlike what people claim'? Isn't the whole debate about that high initiative boosting people can do that, starting at 2 extra dice?
Also, interesting about the 5 Minors max. Could you tell where you got that from? That's a bit disappointing because it means the fifth Initiative die literally only adds Initiative and that sounds weird.
On the first part I was tried when I was writing this and may have miss read a earlier post.
As for the "Max 5 minor action" thing, this was confirmed by Jason Hardy (Line Developer) during the Shadowrun 6th Edition Interview Q&A on Shadowcasters Network.
-
I also think some people are over reacting to the new edge rules.
Jason Hardy also stated that the max edge you will get per turn no matter the times you can earn it is +2.
You will also be limited to only carrying a maximum of 7 edge at anyone time so it's in your best interest to use it not horde it.
So with these limits I don't see edge tracking as being hard at all, and it seem to be a lot better then adding and subtraction all the situational modifiers that can stack-up during a combat round in 5th.
Overall, with the limits it seems like it will do a lot to streamline combat.
-
I don't know who you're referring to with 'unlike what people claim'? Isn't the whole debate about that high initiative boosting people can do that, starting at 2 extra dice?
Also, interesting about the 5 Minors max. Could you tell where you got that from? That's a bit disappointing because it means the fifth Initiative die literally only adds Initiative and that sounds weird.
On the first part I was tried when I was writing this and may have miss read a earlier post.
As for the "Max 5 minor action" thing, this was confirmed by Jason Hardy (Line Developer) during the Shadowrun 6th Edition Interview Q&A on Shadowcasters Network.
If people can still get 5d6 but the last die gives no Minor, I know my first houserule already.
-
The lack of free actions kind of bothers me. Like how many combat turns does it take to do something basic like get out of a car and shoot someone.
Open door minor action. Unbuckle major action stand up minor?major? Draw gun major/minor. Shoot major.
Jesus people seem kind of uncoordinated. It starts to take 6+ Seconds to do something that can be done in real life in 3 because normal people can multitask.
-
The lack of free actions kind of bothers me. Like how many combat turns does it take to do something basic like get out of a car and shoot someone.
Open door minor action. Unbuckle major action stand up minor?major? Draw gun major/minor. Shoot major.
Jesus people seem kind of uncoordinated. It starts to take 6+ Seconds to do something that can be done in real life in 3 because normal people can multitask.
...+1
-
Also, interesting about the 5 Minors max. Could you tell where you got that from? That's a bit disappointing because it means the fifth Initiative die literally only adds Initiative and that sounds weird.
just a note for you all it is NOT a max of 5 minor actions, the limiter on it the max of 5 initiative dice which by extension makes it a limit of 6 minor actions (as a base) but there is no actual verbiage that limits the number of actions you can get which leaves it open ended for those special abilities and gear that may give you just a straight up extra action ... and YES there is gear that says "when you do X with Y gain a bonus minor action."
-
Also, interesting about the 5 Minors max. Could you tell where you got that from? That's a bit disappointing because it means the fifth Initiative die literally only adds Initiative and that sounds weird.
just a note for you all it is NOT a max of 5 minor actions, the limiter on it the max of 5 initiative dice which by extension makes it a limit of 6 minor actions (as a base) but there is no actual verbiage that limits the number of actions you can get which leaves it open ended for those special abilities and gear that may give you just a straight up extra action ... and YES there is gear that says "when you do X with Y gain a bonus minor action."
Well, that's interesting. Thanks for the clarifications. It does mean that until we get the book there is not a very good picture of the rules to be able to draw out any conclusion on what the action economy will look like. I guess I will just have to wait and see.
-
Well Banshee you may feel it's not relevant, but to me if you're thought process is that TM didn't work in 5e b/c players "felt like they didn't work" vs recognition of the fact that TM was a failed Archetype for most of 5e. This is extremely relevant to how I see things going, any HR Professional or Industrial Engineer will tell you; Past behavior are strong indicators of future out comes.
I'm seriously looking for a reason to hope 6e isn't going to follow the TM example in 5e, the math thus far has me very concerned. You're free to dismiss me of course. I know gamers are always cranky about new editions, and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to engage about something they created; and I recognize NDA's have you locked down. I been there, I'm an engineer I design stuff ever day and review and release are both painful processes.
I have supported SR and the devs for a long time on here, I'd be happy to do it again. I and probably many others want a reason to believe 6e is going to be better then 5e. A couple streamers, some podcasts, and the army of Catalyst demo team agents aren't going sway my opinion, I've argued with these jokers for years. Math, fact or a good argument can change my mind. So to you why is 6e better? How is this an improvement over the edition that we have seen before? By all means skip the specifics but to your mind why is it better?
feel versus actual comes done to a simple choice of GM and Player style is where I come from with my statement. If you feel that a character that only average 12-14 ( and not the 20+) dice to accomplish anything they need to do as a focus of your archehtype then yes TM's are unplayable in 5E. I was not involved in the design of 5E but I have spent a lot of time conversing with those that did and it was built on a probability curve that was based on the average player dice pool would be 12-16 dice. Regardless though the biggest issue with TM's in 5 was the simple fact that they were confusing and misunderstood by the average player.
My biggest goal was to not only make the matrix more user friendly and easier to understand for the average player who may or may not understand how real world cyber security works ... and hopefully I succeeded but that judgement will have to wait until enough people have seen the new stuff and I can get feedback, but so far the limited feedback I have is positive. As for techno's though I was much more limited in page count, so all I could really do is lay the ground work for future expansions to build on but the base rules are built that a TM can be on even footing with a decker unless they decide to specialize in a different direction ... for example if you want to be a full on techinorigger you're going to have to the pay the price of specializing in that direction (you can you around with being a passable yet limited rigger fairly easy)
-
Dude spends all of his resources on fighting and everyone wants to be 90% of that for 1/10th the cost.
Sure, but what about for 99% of the cost?
Imagine a fight with two street samurai. One rolls 32 for initiative, the other rolls 31. The first will get two attacks on the other before the other has a chance to respond.
That's worse than 2nd edition, where these two would be alternating attacks before anyone else got a chance.
Of course street samurai should shine in combat. That's what they're for. But there's a limit to that. Over the course of a session, everybody should get their chance to shine in their thing, and with combat being a pretty big part of the game, not getting chance to do much for such a big part of the game would absolutely be a problem. SR6 tries to fix that by removing initiative passes, and that could be great, but if the result is that a combat specialist may even outshine another combat specialist who rolled one point lower on the one initiative roll they get per combat, I worry.
There no better judge than actual play of course. I hope they playtest this well.
-
Well I hope 6e has better math then. the expected probability may have been based on a pc with 12-16 dice in their specialty but the math was for deckers to consistently fail with those numbers.
-
Dude spends all of his resources on fighting and everyone wants to be 90% of that for 1/10th the cost.
Sure, but what about for 99% of the cost?
Imagine a fight with two street samurai. One rolls 32 for initiative, the other rolls 31. The first will get two attacks on the other before the other has a chance to respond.
That's worse than 2nd edition, where these two would be alternating attacks before anyone else got a chance.
Of course street samurai should shine in combat. That's what they're for. But there's a limit to that. Over the course of a session, everybody should get their chance to shine in their thing, and with combat being a pretty big part of the game, not getting chance to do much for such a big part of the game would absolutely be a problem. SR6 tries to fix that by removing initiative passes, and that could be great, but if the result is that a combat specialist may even outshine another combat specialist who rolled one point lower on the one initiative roll they get per combat, I worry.
There no better judge than actual play of course. I hope they playtest this well.
I’m not as interested in one of fight results like street sam vs street sam as I am in the rules representing your overall effect in your specialty. Yes 2 shots before the other sam moves though you didn’t draw a gun, move, get cover etc. but potential 2 attacks against security guards va 3-4
Makes you seem basically mundane. A few extra minors sounds like basic combat training and not cyber speed stuff.
As for the time to shine. Combat plays as little or as much of a roll as you want. We have games with multiple fights, some with one fight and some with none. Usually depends on the story and how I’m trying to highlight a character. If he wants to add to a social scene he is taking a stat that has no other value to him and is taking away from his core role stats. He is picking up extra skills etc. I don’t expect people to do nothing in a fight but if they want to solidly contribute I expect they should devote enough resources to it. If the action economy isn’t working well enough a cheap cyberarm might get you 90% of the way to a street sam.
Maybe you’ll be able to farm enough bonus minor actions with ware in play to make it work. But the lack of free actions really makes me think even street sams will most likely just be attacking once as you’ll most likely always need 2 minors.
-
My biggest goal was to not only make the matrix more user friendly and easier to understand for the average player who may or may not understand how real world cyber security works ...
I do not envy the position you are in.
In part because I found that the less you understood how real world cyber security worked, the easier it was to wrap your head around the Matrix in 5e.
Anyway, as a show of good faith I'll let you know what I will be looking at specifically in the Matrix rules of 6e. This is not an attempt to coax more information out of you (although I will gladly take some! ;) ) but to let you get an idea of if I will find unfinished seams or not in what is written so far.
- Defense: In 5e Deckers were originally described as the teams gear expert and protector. Until Kill Code came out, they couldn't really do jack to protect gear. (At least not any better than an unattended Fairlight Caliban could.) So, I'll be looking specifically at what characters can do to prevent / spot / thwart hacking attempts against their gear.
- Detecting Hacking: 5e was written around the MARK method. For all of it's flaws (mostly Action Economy), it was at the core of Matrix Defense. There were four ways to know your gear was being hacked. 1) A successful Attack action against it, 2) A failed Sleaze action against it, 3) Unrecognized MARKs on it, and 4) It wasn't working as intended. Kill Code introduced Matrix Actions that didn't require MARKs which was great for Action Economy, but wiped out 1/4 of the ways to notice hacking against your stuff, and the only way to detect hacking against you if the hacker was getting successful Sleaze Actions. With 6e removing MARKs all together, I'll be looking hard at how noticable hacking is.
- Getting Lost in the Noise: 5e Matrix enabled anyone to grab "something about your persona" with a simple Matrix Perception test - that could be automatic if conditions were typical. An example is commcode. There wasn't anything in the published rules about changing commcode, leaving the ability to get "lost" without buying new gear completely in the hands of the GM. Not a horrible thing, but there wasn't even a mention on if it could be done.
- In Game Usefulness: It didn't take long for most people to catch on that having your gear Wireless On was a huge liability, and that running Wireless Off was the only real strategic choice. That consequently made all those Wireless Bonuses mostly irrelevant, because none of them were worth the potential problems of leaving yourself open. Is 6e the same? Is there anything about the Matrix that makes it worthwhile to leave yourself open to it?
- Usage Space: This is tied to the above. One of my biggest WTF? moments is when I realized 5e was written in such a way as to make it impossible to do anything tech related without access to the Matrix. Now, it fits in perfectly with the way the real world is going... It just shattered my enjoyment of the 5e Matrix rules when I realized an average Joe Citizen couldn't even take a note (Edit File) on their commlink if they weren't connected to the Matrix.
- Multiple Persona Disorder: Kill Code created the unfortunate reality that someone only ever has a single Persona. Sure, you can change how it looks, but all the underlying code / information / authorization data / etc. remained the same. I'm not entirely certain how you could erase that particular FUBAR moment... However I will be looking to see if there is anything that states a character can have more than one Persona or not.
- Are Hosts Overpowered?: 5e had made the hosts out of the league of a most starting Deckers. Which was kind of odd, since they were supposed to be able to slice hosts when they weren't being badasses at protecting your gear. Are non-black site hosts more accesable to Deckers in 6e?
- How MAD are Deckers?: This extends to skills as well. 5e Deckers were all over the map with what they needed. 3 Attributes, with another 2 or 3 being really good choices for them. At least 5 skills... It was crazy for them to get to the 12 to 16 average dice pool in everything they needed (because they had to be Jack of all Trades Matrix Jockeys because you never know what they will need to do). Has this been addressed in 6e?
I'm sure there is more that I am forgetting, but this is what I could come up with now.
-
crikey in 3E you needed something more powerful than an SMG to cause vehicular damage).
You went too far back.
In 5e a Hold Out pistol can reliably damage many stock vehicles. A hold out pistol is DV 6, with 1 Net Hit required to to even have a chance of triggering a Damage Resistance Test, makes it a minimum of DV 7.
Many stock vehicles have 6 Armor or less (let's take the Shin-Hyung as an example) meaning if the Hold Out pistol hits, it triggers a Damage Resistance Test against a minimum DV of 7. With 16 dice (stock Shin-Hyung has 10 Body, 6 Armor) the vehicle is very likely going to suffer at least 2 damage. And at 1425 Nuyen per box of damage repair, that is a repair bill of at least 2850 Nuyen. From a Hold Out pistol.
Stock vehicles are for basic bitches.
Depending on whether they went with concealed or standard armor, a modified Shin-Hyung is going to have 9 or 11 Armor, which moves the minimum required hits up to 4 or 6, unless you're using a Walther, in which case it's 3 or 5. In either case, stock hold-outs just don't have the accuracy necessary to damage the Shin-Hyung with standard armor, requiring either Take Aim actions or an internal smartgun system. Assuming those are in place, we can look at the expected damage: minimum DV of 10 vs 19 dice means 4 expected damage and minimum DV of 12 vs 21 dice means 5 expected damage. However, this damage is far less likely to have occurred in the first place, because these are not at all easy shots to make.
Moving onto the example of Toyota Gopher vs Ares Predator, a modified Gopher will have an armor of 14 or 17, requiring the Predator to get 6 or 9 hits. Base accuracy of a Predator is 7 when you include the smartgun system, so let's assume modifications, Take Aim actions or some combination thereof are used in the latter case. That means we're looking at minimum DV 14 vs 27 dice for 5 expected damage and minimum DV of 17 vs 30 dice for 7 expected damage. However, these are very, very difficult shots to make, and it would be far easier to damage the Gopher if the Predator is using APDS. In that case, the Predator only needs 2 or 5 hits, so we see minimum DV 10 vs 23 dice for 3 expected damage and minimum DV 13 vs 26 dice for 5 expected damage. However, damaging the Gopher with standard armor remains a tricky shot to pull off.
Now let me introduce a new example, the Ares Roadmaster. 18 Body, 18 stock Armor which can be bumped up to 24 concealed or 27 standard. An Ares Predator with APDS would need 6 hits to damage even the base model, so the weapon in this example will be the Ares Alpha, with DV 11 and a base AP of -2. It has a base accuracy of 7 when used with smartlink, but getting a custom grip is cheap and easy so let's bump that up to 8. With standard ammunition, it takes the Alpha 6, 12 and 15 hits to damage the stock, concealed and standard armor configurations respectively. The latter two are absurdly difficult, so we can only examine the first: minimum 17 DV vs 34 dice for 6 expected damage, and that is on a very tricky shot. Load the Alpha with APDS, and then it becomes a matter of getting 2, 8 and 11 hits to achieve damage. 11 is still absurdly difficult, so let's look at the stock and concealed scenarios: minimum DV 13 vs 30 dice for 3 expected damage and Minimum DV 19 vs 36 dice for 7 expected damage. The latter is achieved only with a very, very difficult shot. Damaging the standard armor Roadmaster is probably outside the scope of this argument.
-
I was waiting for someone to foolishly bring up upgrading the armor on vehicles.
Sure, it helps lock out lower damage weapons from damaging the vehicle.
The double edged sword effect is that when the arms race catches up to you, and you get up to the weapons that can reliably do any damage (Shotguns, Assault Cannons, Sniper Rifles, Grenades, Explosives) they are doing tremendous amounts of damage that outstrip your vehicles ability to soak the extra damage.
Add to that that more armor increases the cost of the vehicle, and that increases the cost for repairs.
So, let's take a Roadmaster as an example.
18 Body, 27 Armor.
We will use a basic, off-the-shelf Panther XXL Assault Cannon
17 DV, -6 AP
Not terribly likely a successful attack will land, but 5 Net Hits isn't against possibility with a base Accuracy of 7.
22 DV versus Body of 18 + Armor of 21. 39 Dice to resist when you statistically need around 66 to stop all damage.
You will get about 13 Resistance reducing that damage down to 9. Which will cost you 25,425 Nuyen to repair.
The kicker is, if you went with Concealed Armor, you would take more damage and spend more Nuyen per box than with standard. (This is based on a Roadmaster that only has the armor upgrade, not any of the other neat stuff people want.)
-
My biggest goal was to not only make the matrix more user friendly and easier to understand for the average player who may or may not understand how real world cyber security works ...
I do not envy the position you are in.
In part because I found that the less you understood how real world cyber security worked, the easier it was to wrap your head around the Matrix in 5e.
Anyway, as a show of good faith I'll let you know what I will be looking at specifically in the Matrix rules of 6e. This is not an attempt to coax more information out of you (although I will gladly take some! ;) ) but to let you get an idea of if I will find unfinished seams or not in what is written so far.
- Defense: In 5e Deckers were originally described as the teams gear expert and protector. Until Kill Code came out, they couldn't really do jack to protect gear. (At least not any better than an unattended Fairlight Caliban could.) So, I'll be looking specifically at what characters can do to prevent / spot / thwart hacking attempts against their gear.
- Detecting Hacking: 5e was written around the MARK method. For all of it's flaws (mostly Action Economy), it was at the core of Matrix Defense. There were four ways to know your gear was being hacked. 1) A successful Attack action against it, 2) A failed Sleaze action against it, 3) Unrecognized MARKs on it, and 4) It wasn't working as intended. Kill Code introduced Matrix Actions that didn't require MARKs which was great for Action Economy, but wiped out 1/4 of the ways to notice hacking against your stuff, and the only way to detect hacking against you if the hacker was getting successful Sleaze Actions. With 6e removing MARKs all together, I'll be looking hard at how noticable hacking is.
- Getting Lost in the Noise: 5e Matrix enabled anyone to grab "something about your persona" with a simple Matrix Perception test - that could be automatic if conditions were typical. An example is commcode. There wasn't anything in the published rules about changing commcode, leaving the ability to get "lost" without buying new gear completely in the hands of the GM. Not a horrible thing, but there wasn't even a mention on if it could be done.
- In Game Usefulness: It didn't take long for most people to catch on that having your gear Wireless On was a huge liability, and that running Wireless Off was the only real strategic choice. That consequently made all those Wireless Bonuses mostly irrelevant, because none of them were worth the potential problems of leaving yourself open. Is 6e the same? Is there anything about the Matrix that makes it worthwhile to leave yourself open to it?
- Usage Space: This is tied to the above. One of my biggest WTF? moments is when I realized 5e was written in such a way as to make it impossible to do anything tech related without access to the Matrix. Now, it fits in perfectly with the way the real world is going... It just shattered my enjoyment of the 5e Matrix rules when I realized an average Joe Citizen couldn't even take a note (Edit File) on their commlink if they weren't connected to the Matrix.
- Multiple Persona Disorder: Kill Code created the unfortunate reality that someone only ever has a single Persona. Sure, you can change how it looks, but all the underlying code / information / authorization data / etc. remained the same. I'm not entirely certain how you could erase that particular FUBAR moment... However I will be looking to see if there is anything that states a character can have more than one Persona or not.
- Are Hosts Overpowered?: 5e had made the hosts out of the league of a most starting Deckers. Which was kind of odd, since they were supposed to be able to slice hosts when they weren't being badasses at protecting your gear. Are non-black site hosts more accesable to Deckers in 6e?
- How MAD are Deckers?: This extends to skills as well. 5e Deckers were all over the map with what they needed. 3 Attributes, with another 2 or 3 being really good choices for them. At least 5 skills... It was crazy for them to get to the 12 to 16 average dice pool in everything they needed (because they had to be Jack of all Trades Matrix Jockeys because you never know what they will need to do). Has this been addressed in 6e?
I'm sure there is more that I am forgetting, but this is what I could come up with now.
I will try to address your points as best as I cam :)
Defense - yes a properly equipped decker will far outshine someone with just a commlink for matrix defense .. so without a decker (or TM) on your side you will be leaving yourself pretty vulnerable to being hacked ... that leaves how you equip yourself as being the limiter on how detrimental that is
Detect Hacking - still basically the same thing but there really only 2 things now that matter ... any attack action or a failed sleaze action
Getting Lost - still nothing specific in the matrix rules, though going "off the grid" and laying low should be better handled by the Heat mechanic
Wireless - wireless bonuses are still a thing and will probably be just as impactful if you are paranoid about being hacked ... most of the bonuses feed into the action economy (effectively making certain minor actions a "free" action by giving you a bonus minor action ... ie changing a clip with a smartgun"
Usage - this is more of a misconception I think... you can (and could in 5E) still access a device in your possession without connecting to the matrix just like in today's world your typical smartphone has a limited amount of functionality even with no signal but connecting to the matrix increases that functionality exponentially. There are no specific rules that state how useful something is without a matrix connection one way or another and should be handled with common sense.
MPD - we don't specifically address this either but it intended that for a decker (or any typical matrix user except techomancers) your persona is generated by your gear so regardless of what it looks like unless you change gear it will have the same underlying code just like in KillCode
Hosts - they can be as nasty or as easy as the GM wants them to be it is all based on what they set the base Host rating as
How MAD are deckers - well that will ultimately come down to play style but for 95% of what a decker is intended to do you only need 2 attributes and 2 skills
-
The double edged sword effect is that when the arms race catches up to you
IF the arms race catches up to you. Depending what vehicle and armor type you choose, you can lock out a lot of weapons and proactively avoid the ones that can actually harm your vehicle. And even if you find yourself on the receiving end of military-grade firepower, you can still dodge the worst of it. Assault cannons are actually the worst of any of the options you could've listed, as they require the shooter to still have 5 net hits after I've rolled my defense pool.
Wireless - wireless bonuses are still a thing and will probably be just as impactful if you are paranoid about being hacked ... most of the bonuses feed into the action economy (effectively making certain minor actions a "free" action by giving you a bonus minor action ... ie changing a clip with a smartgun"
Please don't make this mistake again. Making everything wireless just to give hackers something to hack is demeaning to the playerbase.
-
feel versus actual comes done to a simple choice of GM and Player style is where I come from with my statement. If you feel that a character that only average 12-14 ( and not the 20+) dice to accomplish anything they need to do as a focus of your archehtype then yes TM's are unplayable in 5E. I was not involved in the design of 5E but I have spent a lot of time conversing with those that did and it was built on a probability curve that was based on the average player dice pool would be 12-16 dice. Regardless though the biggest issue with TM's in 5 was the simple fact that they were confusing and misunderstood by the average player.
My biggest goal was to not only make the matrix more user friendly and easier to understand for the average player who may or may not understand how real world cyber security works ... and hopefully I succeeded but that judgement will have to wait until enough people have seen the new stuff and I can get feedback, but so far the limited feedback I have is positive. As for techno's though I was much more limited in page count, so all I could really do is lay the ground work for future expansions to build on but the base rules are built that a TM can be on even footing with a decker unless they decide to specialize in a different direction ... for example if you want to be a full on techinorigger you're going to have to the pay the price of specializing in that direction (you can you around with being a passable yet limited rigger fairly easy)
I do appreciate your reply Banshee, my question was intended as speaking more of the 6e system in general, but in re-reading it I clearly failed to make that point at all clear. So I'll address the points you raised. I follow how they went out their way to tune TM math to a very exact range, which is why CF look so weird compared to spells. However that strongly suggest ether the left hand wasn't talking to the right hand, a priority choice was made, or some combination of the two. When players sat down to math out 5e matrix with the two roles doing the same thing. One had less dice with greater risk verses another that did the same job with more dice and less risk, so by definition had a meaningfully higher probability of success. They couldn't make the argument that the first archetype was functional. That of course isn't even considering the editing errors that plagued the first printing.
-
I’m not a fan of the wireless bonuses. I’d prefer just making everything hackable and instead of a wireless bonus sentence a sentence explaining how it can be hacked. Wireless bonuses add too much work for me as a GM as I juggle if they should be on or not. Am I giving too much or too little for the decker to do etc.
-
I do appreciate your reply Banshee, my question was intended as speaking more of the 6e system in general, but in re-reading it I clearly failed to make that point at all clear. So I'll address the points you raised. I follow how they went out their way to tune TM math to a very exact range, which is why CF look so weird compared to spells. However that strongly suggest ether the left hand wasn't talking to the right hand, a priority choice was made, or some combination of the two. When players sat down to math out 5e matrix with the two roles doing the same thing. One had less dice with greater risk verses another that did the same job with more dice and less risk, so by definition had a meaningfully higher probability of success. They couldn't make the argument that the first archetype was functional. That of course isn't even considering the editing errors that plagued the first printing.
See I think it is a matter of somatics we are "arguing" over then, I agree with what you are saying is the root problem (and made some changes to correct that very issue) but the difference isn't that it makes technomancers nonfunctional or even ineffective ... what it do was make them a less desirable choice because they could get to decker levels of dice pools without hyperfocusing. In my opinion less desirable does not make them unplayable or nonfunctional, and that is why say it is a perceived concept versus actual problem.
I know this was done on purpose in 5E because they felt TM's would be too powerful when combined with the other options available to them. In 6E I made techno's more of a generalist (I think, but we shall see how it plays out when "you guys" get to open up that tool chest) that could then specialize differently then a decker if they so choose. A starting right out of the gate basic non-specialized decker and technomancer should be pretty close to equals if you say for example keep the same priorities for race, attributes, and skills but just swap out the resonance for gear. I know my test builds did.
-
I’m not a fan of the wireless bonuses. I’d prefer just making everything hackable and instead of a wireless bonus sentence a sentence explaining how it can be hacked. Wireless bonuses add too much work for me as a GM as I juggle if they should be on or not. Am I giving too much or too little for the decker to do etc.
for what it's worth I agree, but there are more than my voice making the decisions on how things ended up ;)
-
On the decker vs technomancer thing. I think technomancers ended up being non viable because the setting examples of security for matrix defense actually required high end decker pools. So smaller pools by a technomancer ended up being non functional for their core role. I’m sure you could advance to a point it worked. But until then you couldn’t hack the things a matrix specialist should hack for a team.
As a gm ive consistently dropped the oppositions dice pools by quite a few dice so the technomancer who is there only matrix dude make it.
-
I will try to address your points as best as I can :)
Thank you very much. I appreciate the response.
I will be flat out honest with you. Some of what you said in your post sounds really good (Deckers can actually do something to protect gear, if they so choose; greatly reduced MADness), some is questionable - probably due to me not grasping your meaning, or not being able to see the actual mechanic in writing (It sounds like a player is completely at the mercy of a hacker succeeding at Sleaze actions against them, Heat mechanic), and some doesn't sound so good - those are primarily due to restrictions you were required to work within.
One point is confusing enough to me that I need to ask a follow up question:
Persona are tied to devices? Are you saying that if Character A "logs in" (or whatever you wish to call it) to Commlink A their persona is one collection of data, and then if they log into Deck B their persona is effectively different?
That works against what I understand to be the Shadowrun Matrix after Crash 2.0.
My understanding (and I am willing to wager it is wrong, after your posts) is that a persons Persona is their ID essentially. If I go to work for MagaCorp they tie my Persona into their security system, rather than issue me an ID card. If my Persona differs (beyond just visually) with different devices, that would seriously hinder the ability for a character to change devices. Either MegaCorp would have to "log" (for lack of a better term) all of my Personas, or I would have to jump through some serious hoops to switch devices if my commlink gets stolen, dropped, etc..
It makes me believe I'm not really grasping how the Matrix and Personas are intended to work. And my understanding is based on what is published in 5e. If I am off base, hopefully 6e will clear that up.
-
Persona are tied to devices? Are you saying that if Character A "logs in" (or whatever you wish to call it) to Commlink A their persona is one collection of data, and then if they log into Deck B their persona is effectively different?
That works against what I understand to be the Shadowrun Matrix after Crash 2.0.
My understanding (and I am willing to wager it is wrong, after your posts) is that a persons Persona is their ID essentially. If I go to work for MagaCorp they tie my Persona into their security system, rather than issue me an ID card. If my Persona differs (beyond just visually) with different devices, that would seriously hinder the ability for a character to change devices. Either MegaCorp would have to "log" (for lack of a better term) all of my Personas, or I would have to jump through some serious hoops to switch devices if my commlink gets stolen, dropped, etc..
It makes me believe I'm not really grasping how the Matrix and Personas are intended to work. And my understanding is based on what is published in 5e. If I am off base, hopefully 6e will clear that up.
and to be equally honest right back, I don't give much credence to the fluff and lore of the metaplots (so I may be completely off base too) so I only interpret the rules as presented and any inconsistencies in the fluff can be handled however people want so how a persona is represented behind the scenes doesn't matter as far as the rules go ... but they way I saw things is that a personsa is basically the equivalent of your internet signature which means it is a function of both your username and passwords (IE how you look to the rest of the matrix) and then your operating system, platform, and IP address (basically your software and hardware/gear) ... that means yes there are some things you can change easily enough but as long as you are tied to gear there some aspects that are hardwired in
-
The bit of lore in 5th edition about how your persona's digital forensics never change, even across devices, was well beyond the focus of that edition's core rulebook. And since 6th's is a good bit slimmer than 5th's, that degree of hair-splitting is pretty safely in the realm of GM perogative/future matrix books.
-
See I think it is a matter of somatics we are "arguing" over then, I agree with what you are saying is the root problem (and made some changes to correct that very issue) but the difference isn't that it makes technomancers nonfunctional or even ineffective ... what it do was make them a less desirable choice because they could get to decker levels of dice pools without hyperfocusing. In my opinion less desirable does not make them unplayable or nonfunctional, and that is why say it is a perceived concept versus actual problem.
Sorry, but you activated my .... well actually negative quality, feel free to ignore me. But a rating 6 Host, with Max Firewall has 15 Dice. A well built Decker could handle it, maybe spend a few edge if there were several things to do, but could git er done. A really min/maxed Technomancer is going to have 14 Dice or so, and probably less Edge than the Decker. With Direct Access they'll get a Mark on the Host.... and then they're probably screwed as most anything they'll need to do still goes against the Hosts stats.
Local Corporate Hosts start at Rating 7. Technomancers were pretty well screwed out of the gate. It wasn't a perception problem in so much as it was 14 is less than 17 and Hacking required so many successful tests to get anything useful done. It just wasn't a playerbase perception problem, Technomancers struggled to do the job they were supposed to do and were the weakest Archetype outside their specialty outside of very focused or exotic builds requiring a high degree of system mastery.
Thank you so very much for your hard work, and taking the time to answer a never ending stream of questions.
-
On the first part I was tried when I was writing this and may have miss read a earlier post.
As for the "Max 5 minor action" thing, this was confirmed by Jason Hardy (Line Developer) during the Shadowrun 6th Edition Interview Q&A on Shadowcasters Network.
If people can still get 5d6 but the last die gives no Minor, I know my first houserule already.
This brings up an interesting question, as to whether the '4 minor max' rule comes after all the calculation or at every stage. I.e., Sam Street starts with 1 Major 2 Minors (sounds like quite the studious college student!). Through initiative and other game mechanics, he 'earns' 3 extra minor actions. He plans on converting 4 minors to a second major. Does this mean:
1. He's maxed out at 4. So when he converts, he ends up with 2 Majors, period. Or...
2. He converts 4 of them to a Major, giving him 2 Majors and 1 Minor. Since he's now under the 4-minor limit, he's good.
Banshee, any feedback?
-
How MAD are deckers - well that will ultimately come down to play style but for 95% of what a decker is intended to do you only need 2 attributes and 2 skills
Excellent. Personally I'm a fan of a 'role' not needing a whole bunch of skills and attributes. It allows for multidimensional PCs that still have competitive dice pools in their primary role.
Question: is the same true for Technos? Riggers? I'm really hoping Technos, in particular, don't need all four non-physical attributes just to replace a deck like in SR 5.
-
Wireless - wireless bonuses are still a thing and will probably be just as impactful if you are paranoid about being hacked ... most of the bonuses feed into the action economy (effectively making certain minor actions a "free" action by giving you a bonus minor action ... ie changing a clip with a smartgun"
Please don't make this mistake again. Making everything wireless just to give hackers something to hack is demeaning to the playerbase.
Agreed. It was a blatantly obvious ploy from the day the book came out. Everything wireless and hackable was only thrown in because they wanted to kick hackers out of the van, especially when they changed from having to be within mutual signal strength to the godawful Noise mechanic, and they realized that, "Oh, drek, the hackers are utterly fucked. We better nerf everyone so they don't feel like they got drekked on. Except TMs, fuck those guys."
-
If they wanted to nerf everyone relative to deckers, they wouldn't have left the "turn everything to wireless-off" option as a free action ;)
-
Agreed. It was a blatantly obvious ploy from the day the book came out. Everything wireless and hackable was only thrown in because they wanted to kick hackers out of the van, especially when they changed from having to be within mutual signal strength to the godawful Noise mechanic, and they realized that, "Oh, drek, the hackers are utterly fucked. We better nerf everyone so they don't feel like they got drekked on. Except TMs, fuck those guys."
Wait, how's that work? Doesn't making everything wireless make hackers more likely to stay in the van, whereas making most things be wired-only boot them out of the van?
-
...Run For Your Life to avoid an AOE attack is an Interrupt Action which costs 5 Initiative. A "normal"(INT + REA) dodge during combat doesn't (or Missions has been doing it entirely wrong for years).
Dodge LITERALLY is an Interrupt Action which costs 5 Initiative. Page 186. SR5 Core. So again, why are you claiming it's a free action in SR5 and thus a problem that it's a Minor in SR6?
...apparently a semantics issue here.
On page 173 of the Core Rules under Combat Sequence: Step 3 Defend. It says nothing about this being an Interrupt Action. A character can use this as long as they have enough dice in their INT + REA pool.
I'm currently looking at P. 186 of the Core Rules which describes Melee combat and there is no mention anywhere on that page of "dodging" [defending] being an interrupt action that takes -5 initiative It mentions about Reach, has a sidebar about changing damage types, and then goes into several melee combat modifiers on the succeeding pages.
The Dodge action you mention of is listed on P. 191 which involves using Intuition + Reaction + Gymnastics (essentially the Acrobatic Defender quality in Run & Gun). It is not the normal "Defence" test (again which many refer to as "dodge" during play) listed on P. 173.
-
Avoidance has always been more effective then soak. My question is what is the action cost of an interrupt action?
Are they Majors? minors? Are borrowing them from next turn? It seems very odd to me that in game where they are clearly stomping to hell action economy. I feel sure interrupt are not going to be free.
As to Edge ever sense they said glitch on 2, it was already obvious edge was way out of hand. We haven't seen system stuff that bad sense the early days of StoryTeller.
...agreed. Being able to use Edge to increase the chance of an opponent experiencing a glitch takes it out of the realm of a "situational modifier" and makes it seem more like a "power".
-
The Dodge action you mention of is listed on P. 191 which involves using Intuition + Reaction + Gymnastics
Yes. The Dodge Action, aka active dodging. And no, it has nothing to do with Acrobatic Defender, which replaces your Full Defense bonus in SR5.
-
I was waiting for someone to foolishly bring up upgrading the armor on vehicles.
Sure, it helps lock out lower damage weapons from damaging the vehicle.
The double edged sword effect is that when the arms race catches up to you, and you get up to the weapons that can reliably do any damage (Shotguns, Assault Cannons, Sniper Rifles, Grenades, Explosives) they are doing tremendous amounts of damage that outstrip your vehicles ability to soak the extra damage.
Add to that that more armor increases the cost of the vehicle, and that increases the cost for repairs.
So, let's take a Roadmaster as an example.
18 Body, 27 Armor.
We will use a basic, off-the-shelf Panther XXL Assault Cannon
17 DV, -6 AP
Not terribly likely a successful attack will land, but 5 Net Hits isn't against possibility with a base Accuracy of 7.
22 DV versus Body of 18 + Armor of 21. 39 Dice to resist when you statistically need around 66 to stop all damage.
You will get about 13 Resistance reducing that damage down to 9. Which will cost you 25,425 Nuyen to repair.
The kicker is, if you went with Concealed Armor, you would take more damage and spend more Nuyen per box than with standard. (This is based on a Roadmaster that only has the armor upgrade, not any of the other neat stuff people want.)
...now when you bring out the "big guns" that is a different story.
An Auto Assault Shotgun which is capable of burst and full auto, loaded with Handload EXEX slugs starts at a base DV of 16 (- 3 AP) and goes up from there. Tricked out to have a 7 accuracy (internal smartlink and personalised grip) and outfitted with maximum recoil compensation, it has the potential to deliver a total 23 DV. OK, not so great against say a Bulldog, but a small to mid sized car or light truck will at least be reduced to "limping" away.
In the hands of someone highly skilled in Longarms, a Semi Auto Sniper Rifle (particularly using the Double Tap called shot) is one of the best "vehicle killers" around (they're also not too shabby against spirits if there is no Spell Slinger or an Adept around).
-
The Dodge action you mention of is listed on P. 191 which involves using Intuition + Reaction + Gymnastics
Yes. The Dodge Action, aka active dodging. And no, it has nothing to do with Acrobatic Defender, which replaces your Full Defense bonus in SR5.
...the mechanics are still the same: INT + REA + Gymnastics Skill, (not pool) in place of Willpower, subject to Physical Limit. The difference is yes, it is a -10 initiative Interrupt and lasts the balance of the combat turn rather than just a single initiative phase.
-
On the first part I was tried when I was writing this and may have miss read a earlier post.
As for the "Max 5 minor action" thing, this was confirmed by Jason Hardy (Line Developer) during the Shadowrun 6th Edition Interview Q&A on Shadowcasters Network.
If people can still get 5d6 but the last die gives no Minor, I know my first houserule already.
This brings up an interesting question, as to whether the '4 minor max' rule comes after all the calculation or at every stage. I.e., Sam Street starts with 1 Major 2 Minors (sounds like quite the studious college student!). Through initiative and other game mechanics, he 'earns' 3 extra minor actions. He plans on converting 4 minors to a second major. Does this mean:
1. He's maxed out at 4. So when he converts, he ends up with 2 Majors, period. Or...
2. He converts 4 of them to a Major, giving him 2 Majors and 1 Minor. Since he's now under the 4-minor limit, he's good.
Banshee, any feedback?
I responded in another post too, but to clarify there is NOT a max number of minor actions ... what the rule says is that you can have a maximum of +5d6 initiative dice which means by extension you can only have 6 minor actions just based off of initiative at most but there is gear and qualities that can also give you minor actions
-
On the first part I was tried when I was writing this and may have miss read a earlier post.
As for the "Max 5 minor action" thing, this was confirmed by Jason Hardy (Line Developer) during the Shadowrun 6th Edition Interview Q&A on Shadowcasters Network.
If people can still get 5d6 but the last die gives no Minor, I know my first houserule already.
This brings up an interesting question, as to whether the '4 minor max' rule comes after all the calculation or at every stage. I.e., Sam Street starts with 1 Major 2 Minors (sounds like quite the studious college student!). Through initiative and other game mechanics, he 'earns' 3 extra minor actions. He plans on converting 4 minors to a second major. Does this mean:
1. He's maxed out at 4. So when he converts, he ends up with 2 Majors, period. Or...
2. He converts 4 of them to a Major, giving him 2 Majors and 1 Minor. Since he's now under the 4-minor limit, he's good.
Banshee, any feedback?
I responded in another post too, but to clarify there is NOT a max number of minor actions ... what the rule says is that you can have a maximum of +5d6 initiative dice which means by extension you can only have 6 minor actions just based off of initiative at most but there is gear and qualities that can also give you minor actions
If I understand this correctly then, characters with the better initiative improving items (cyberware or magic) should generally be able to get two major actions and a few minors when combining initiative boosting things with gear, assuming they don't roll terribly, of course? As I don't know the system yet and am waiting for 6th edition to start, would this also apply to decking and rigging (I'm assuming they have similar initiative boosters available, plus archetype specific toys)?
-
sort of ... what you roll has no effect on how many actions you get it is all based on how many dice you have ... what you roll on determines when you get to act
and yes the same thing applies to all initiative types ... physical, matrix, and astral
-
sort of ... what you roll has no effect on how many actions you get it is all based on how many dice you have ... what you roll on determines when you get to act
and yes the same thing applies to all initiative types ... physical, matrix, and astral
Ah, thanks for the clarification!
-
Agreed. It was a blatantly obvious ploy from the day the book came out. Everything wireless and hackable was only thrown in because they wanted to kick hackers out of the van, especially when they changed from having to be within mutual signal strength to the godawful Noise mechanic, and they realized that, "Oh, drek, the hackers are utterly fucked. We better nerf everyone so they don't feel like they got drekked on. Except TMs, fuck those guys."
Wait, how's that work? Doesn't making everything wireless make hackers more likely to stay in the van, whereas making most things be wired-only boot them out of the van?
Before, when you needed to be in mutual signal range to hack something, you could literally hack something on the other side of the planet, if you went through international networks or satellite links. It wasn't uncommon for a hacker to spend the 'legwork' part of the run in full VR, probing a target building to get an admin account so that they could log in 'legitimately' once the run went down, limiting their exposure. The advent of Noise and Overwatch Score (combined with lower dice pools overall) meant you couldn't take the slow, safe approach any more, leading to more brute force, on the spot hacks, because that was the only way to keep a large enough pool so that you wouldn't bring down all the IC on your head.
Going back to everything being wireless, every illegal matrix action you took boosted your OS, whether it worked or not, and Noise worked against you. So to hack someone's smartgun, you'd need to be close enough that the Noise wouldn't fuck with you, and if you did too much illegal stuff between times rebooting all your gear, your OS would get high enough that GOD would drop on your head in the middle of a run.
-
Personally, I never really saw much of a problem related to the Wireless Bonus setup, with the possible exceptions of Wireless Concealed Holsters (better get the Wrapper program, or ask for help from someone who does have it). The basic presumption that I ran with was that the threat of someone hacking your stuff was rare to non-existant (from the end-user-on-the-street perspective), and everyone felt safe because every OS would automatically send error messages to the closest G-Men and they could always go Wireless Off easily until the threat had passed.
Yes, this was a way get the hackers on-site and doing risky stuff with the rest of the group instead of just safely fiddling with the place ahead of time, and a way to let hackers do stuff while everyone else was doing stuff, which seems intended to make deckers and TMs more enticing to play as, rather than just taking one as a contact and hand-waving everything. (Probably stating the obvious here)
So, I'm still cautiously optimistic about how this is going to go. Maybe there'll be a mention that the general populace is less paranoid or hyper-vigilant than your characters will be?
-
Watching the Actual play and thought this was very cool. 4 edge for Anticipation which allows you to use the full dice pool on each target in a multi-attack. That should help the action economy.
-
Watching the Actual play and thought this was very cool. 4 edge for Anticipation which allows you to use the full dice pool on each target in a multi-attack. That should help the action economy.
4a a lot. Unless you reliably gains 2 a turn you won’t do that often enough to effect the action economy much.
-
Watching the Actual play and thought this was very cool. 4 edge for Anticipation which allows you to use the full dice pool on each target in a multi-attack. That should help the action economy.
Neat! Let's see how many people I can attack in one go...
-
Watching the Actual play and thought this was very cool. 4 edge for Anticipation which allows you to use the full dice pool on each target in a multi-attack. That should help the action economy.
Neat! Let's see how many people I can attack in one go...
That's what I was thinking. If you trick yourself out for Attack Rating and Edge you could do some serious damage to a group. With Attack rating, I should be able to generate Edge on Attack and with Armor, I can get my second edge on their attack due to armour or from toughness (not sure I like that option though. For those who don't know Toughness now give you an edge when you have to make a soak roll. I will Just need to make sure I go first for when they are grouped up before people start to run for cover and you should be able to put a hurting on the group giving your team a good advantage in the combat to come.
With all the Edge spends and minor actions, I think I agree with Bobby it seems to be a lot of tools in the toolbox to use when playing a Sam. Kinda looking forward to seeing what I can do with the system.
-
Something to keep in mind if anyone hears about the take-home of the stream was "They were almost TPK'd by Devil Rats":
Yeah, but that was mainly because of the cumulative effect of a nasty surprise round and the players not being savvy enough with 6th ed yet to take all the dodge/block/take cover actions they could have. And probably should have.
-
Something to keep in mind if anyone hears about the take-home of the stream was "They were almost TPK'd by Devil Rats":
Yeah, but that was mainly because of the cumulative effect of a nasty surprise round and the players not being savvy enough with 6th ed yet to take all the dodge/block/take cover actions they could have. And probably should have.
And they're likely playing Pre-gens. Which are likely terrible. All Pre-gens for all games are bad for some reason.
And FWIW, I've almost been part of TPK by Devil Rats in....2nd edition I think it was. Couple of us got out and just burned the whole damn building down. The Astral mage never stood a chance, he died screaming and left a very messy corpse in the Van. And the guy who dumped all the gas grenades thinking poison was going to get the Devil Rats, but not get him through his (now chewed up) chem suit. We flat out left him to die as we ran from the poison cloud. The decker was in pretty tough shape, but once me and the Adept got outside and could use grenades we managed.
We came back later with a couple drums of bio-fuel and dealt with it.
Don't underestimate Devil Rats.
-
I have used a massive swarm of them in a parking lot as way to scare a bunch of newbies at an open event. And I second the pregens being bad at a lot of things. Once had a SINGLE Barghest beat an entire party. They ended up bribing it with food.
-
Something to keep in mind if anyone hears about the take-home of the stream was "They were almost TPK'd by Devil Rats":
Yeah, but that was mainly because of the cumulative effect of a nasty surprise round and the players not being savvy enough with 6th ed yet to take all the dodge/block/take cover actions they could have. And probably should have.
It may be the first TPK of 6e, but I'm 100% sure it won't be the last.
-
Something to keep in mind if anyone hears about the take-home of the stream was "They were almost TPK'd by Devil Rats":
Yeah, but that was mainly because of the cumulative effect of a nasty surprise round and the players not being savvy enough with 6th ed yet to take all the dodge/block/take cover actions they could have. And probably should have.
It may be the first TPK of 6e, but I'm 100% sure it won't be the last.
Too be fair all games have them and early on there are more than usual as the players and gm figure out the system.
I expect more than usual though. They were shooting for more deadly, im not sure why but they were. And the soak rules compared to listed damage makes me see many one shot kills of the players. Didn’t dodge, whelp your dead.
-
Something to keep in mind if anyone hears about the take-home of the stream was "They were almost TPK'd by Devil Rats":
Yeah, but that was mainly because of the cumulative effect of a nasty surprise round and the players not being savvy enough with 6th ed yet to take all the dodge/block/take cover actions they could have. And probably should have.
It may be the first TPK of 6e, but I'm 100% sure it won't be the last.
Too be fair all games have them and early on there are more than usual as the players and gm figure out the system.
I expect more than usual though. They were shooting for more deadly, im not sure why but they were. And the soak rules compared to listed damage makes me see many one shot kills of the players. Didn’t dodge, whelp your dead.
The issue he is as you said dodging, jumping for cover and the like. Which a lot of shadowrun players are not accustom to.
But if they have played in other games where this is a thing I'm sure they will pick up on it fine.
-
Something to keep in mind if anyone hears about the take-home of the stream was "They were almost TPK'd by Devil Rats":
Yeah, but that was mainly because of the cumulative effect of a nasty surprise round and the players not being savvy enough with 6th ed yet to take all the dodge/block/take cover actions they could have. And probably should have.
It may be the first TPK of 6e, but I'm 100% sure it won't be the last.
Too be fair all games have them and early on there are more than usual as the players and gm figure out the system.
I expect more than usual though. They were shooting for more deadly, im not sure why but they were. And the soak rules compared to listed damage makes me see many one shot kills of the players. Didn’t dodge, whelp your dead.
The issue he is as you said dodging, jumping for cover and the like. Which a lot of shadowrun players are not accustom to.
But if they have played in other games where this is a thing I'm sure they will pick up on it fine.
I think people will figure out to use it quick. But if it fails then what?
You don’t have a decent soak to fall back on when you roll bad or just don’t have the minor action.
-
"not having the minor action available to defend yourself with" is the problem that will keep sammies and other initiative monkeys relevant, since they won't suffer it.
-
I think people will figure out to use it quick. But if it fails then what?
You don’t have a decent soak to fall back on when you roll bad or just don’t have the minor action.
They will roll up new characters and start playing the game as Black Trenchcoat as they can. Players and GMs who don't like playing Black Trenchcoat (whether or not they already knew it) will either return to a previous edition of their choosing or stop playing Shadowrun altogether. I'm calling it now.
-
Hah.
-
Oh? You thought I wasn't being serious? I genuinely believe that without suppressive fire and armor on soak rolls, playing Pink Mohawk is going to be impossible in 6e and Mirrorshades will be an incredibly risky proposition.
-
Oh? You thought I wasn't being serious?
Did I say I didn't believe you were serious?
-
I think people will figure out to use it quick. But if it fails then what?
You don’t have a decent soak to fall back on when you roll bad or just don’t have the minor action.
They will roll up new characters and start playing the game as Black Trenchcoat as they can. Players and GMs who don't like playing Black Trenchcoat (whether or not they already knew it) will either return to a previous edition of their choosing or stop playing Shadowrun altogether. I'm calling it now.
Distinctly possible. My current group gravitates to it anyways. I’m running a former gangers game using Chicago missions and it’s they’ve only fought when the plot demanded it. But any forced combat plot moments will be crazy lethal it seems.
Because of how the various groups I’ve been with since 1e play or how I run games maybe no one has felt the urge to get initiative enhancers if it wasn’t key for them. Like a physical adept or street sam. This edition depending on how important additional minors is I can see everyone getting them.
The loss of free actions might roll into it. Before the non augmented face might be running, drawing a gun, diving into cover while shooting a gun. Just to perform appropriately dramatic and well fairly basic human coordination actions you might feel the need for ware to get more minor actions.
Now maybe there are combo minor actions or something to pull it off but ware isn’t making you seem a blur of motion. It feels like you a normal person now.
-
Oh? You thought I wasn't being serious?
Did I say I didn't believe you were serious?
Fair point, but I think this opens up a new conversation: are the devs deliberately trying to kill off Pink Mohawk play?
-
Oh? You thought I wasn't being serious?
Did I say I didn't believe you were serious?
Fair point, but I think this opens up a new conversation: are the devs deliberately trying to kill off Pink Mohawk play?
Would seem weird given how they tried to push pink Mohawk with the Chicago missions and 5e. Though neo Tokyo went the other way for sure. So maybe they got sick of it or whoever pushed it before was not part of 6e.
-
Fair point, but I think this opens up a new conversation: are the devs deliberately trying to kill off Pink Mohawk play?
If the 6e QSR cover art is any indication:
(http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=106164&d=1556652558)
Looks like a pretty strong argument for "No".
-
And yet, they killed off two mechanics critical to making Pink Mohawk possible....
-
I think people will figure out to use it quick. But if it fails then what?
You don’t have a decent soak to fall back on when you roll bad or just don’t have the minor action.
They will roll up new characters and start playing the game as Black Trenchcoat as they can. Players and GMs who don't like playing Black Trenchcoat (whether or not they already knew it) will either return to a previous edition of their choosing or stop playing Shadowrun altogether. I'm calling it now.
Guess I’ll be playing something else then. Forced Black Trenchcoat can go burn in hell. I like my Mohawk Fix or at least the option to do either. 5e was also highly BT in my opinion and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Let the gaming tables make the options of which direction to go, not the game developers
-
Oh? You thought I wasn't being serious? I genuinely believe that without suppressive fire and armor on soak rolls, playing Pink Mohawk is going to be impossible in 6e and Mirrorshades will be an incredibly risky proposition.
...yeah Suppression Fire would be a good defence against the Group Fire option. It is the perfect action for characters who are not front line combatants and don't have extremely high attack pools or physical attributes.
Using only body for the soak roll is going to end up with higher body counts for characters other than chromed up/jacked up Sammys and Trolls.
I've played both types of scenarios, Black Trenchcoat and Pink Mohawk and sometimes it's fun to cut loose turning the air to lead or blowing something to bits and live to talk about it later.
-
I’m waiting to see how the rule are for metas. Will see a onslaught of 1 strength 9 body trolls.
-
Heh, just because STR doesn't factor into weapon DVs doesn't mean STR will be useless.
A 1 STR troll probably wouldn't even be able to move around under the weight of troll-sized equipment. :D
-
I think people will figure out to use it quick. But if it fails then what?
You don’t have a decent soak to fall back on when you roll bad or just don’t have the minor action.
They will roll up new characters and start playing the game as Black Trenchcoat as they can. Players and GMs who don't like playing Black Trenchcoat (whether or not they already knew it) will either return to a previous edition of their choosing or stop playing Shadowrun altogether. I'm calling it now.
Guess I’ll be playing something else then. Forced Black Trenchcoat can go burn in hell. I like my Mohawk Fix or at least the option to do either. 5e was also highly BT in my opinion and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Let the gaming tables make the options of which direction to go, not the game developers
The damage-numbers and mechanics teased suggest that while massive armies of mooks become more dangerous, there's less chance of being one-shotted. Don't forget, in SR4 and SR5 a sniper can easily one-shot you when they get the drop on you unless your armour is crazy high. Only actual time can tell us if this still exists in SR6, but lower damage and lower soak numbers means less 'holy crap a bad soak roll completely wiped me'. I've had players roll 1 hit on over 10 dice even after reroll, so then they'd drop like a fly in SR5. In SR4 there's a Mission where the sniper deliberately fires a paintball first, and his superior initiative still meant that I (too obviously unfortunately) fudged a killing shot.
Also, my SR5 campaign was pretty pink mohawk so I'm a bit surprised to hear that apparently I've been doing it wrong?_?
Anyway, if players wipe too easily, it suggests either the players should be a bit more tactical in the fights they pick, or the GM needs to adjust to the new balance. It doesn't mean we are forced into Black Trenchcoat. So the massive negativity here is extremely surprising. You're playing together with, not against, the GM, so the PM vs BT is still something that explicitly depends on the table.
@Stainless: I wonder how many tests will involve Strength?
-
During 5e I got the distinct feeling that the “directors” wanted BT over PM. Just take a look at Market Panic or other sourcebooks offering mission hooks. Everything was as clandestine as possible. No more for PM plans, just BT options only. Manhattan is pure BT and what’s been described of Tokyo Missions it gives the same vibe. It gives the impression that all the bigger guns and drones are only for the opposition when the players fails.
-
'Okay, so you're fighting the Bug Queen when your Thor-shot alarm goes off. You got maybe 3 minutes to get out of there.'
Never had a problem with BT-pressure. 8)
-
I think people will figure out to use it quick. But if it fails then what?
You don’t have a decent soak to fall back on when you roll bad or just don’t have the minor action.
They will roll up new characters and start playing the game as Black Trenchcoat as they can. Players and GMs who don't like playing Black Trenchcoat (whether or not they already knew it) will either return to a previous edition of their choosing or stop playing Shadowrun altogether. I'm calling it now.
Guess I’ll be playing something else then. Forced Black Trenchcoat can go burn in hell. I like my Mohawk Fix or at least the option to do either. 5e was also highly BT in my opinion and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Let the gaming tables make the options of which direction to go, not the game developers
The damage-numbers and mechanics teased suggest that while massive armies of mooks become more dangerous, there's less chance of being one-shotted. Don't forget, in SR4 and SR5 a sniper can easily one-shot you when they get the drop on you unless your armour is crazy high. Only actual time can tell us if this still exists in SR6, but lower damage and lower soak numbers means less 'holy crap a bad soak roll completely wiped me'. I've had players roll 1 hit on over 10 dice even after reroll, so then they'd drop like a fly in SR5. In SR4 there's a Mission where the sniper deliberately fires a paintball first, and his superior initiative still meant that I (too obviously unfortunately) fudged a killing shot.
Also, my SR5 campaign was pretty pink mohawk so I'm a bit surprised to hear that apparently I've been doing it wrong?_?
Anyway, if players wipe too easily, it suggests either the players should be a bit more tactical in the fights they pick, or the GM needs to adjust to the new balance. It doesn't mean we are forced into Black Trenchcoat. So the massive negativity here is extremely surprising. You're playing together with, not against, the GM, so the PM vs BT is still something that explicitly depends on the table.
@Stainless: I wonder how many tests will involve Strength?
Yeah in SR well anything there are items that can one shot you easily. SR5 I felt was too deadly. Assault Rifles a sort of corp goon norm had a base damage of 11 2 AP, two net hits and you are looking at 13DV. Assuming a fairly normal set up for a runner they had 15ish dice to resists, on average knocking it down to 8, a point of edge knocking it down to 5ish. Now you maybe got hit more since the auofire reduced your dodge dice. But that was another place where you had a chance to save yourself. With cover probably canceling out most of that dodge penalty.
Currently according to what people have stated, assault rifles damage 5 but can be boosted to 7/8 with autofire, their dice pool can go up if firing as a group and I think each group member adds 1 DV. Now low rent types have a solid chance to hit you, and when they hit its devastating. Now lets assume non group, 2 net hits on a auto fire attack. Damage is 9, but you only roll 3 dice, so 8. Seems kind of the same place, but you need 1edge on hand to reroll each failure, and you are kind of capping at reducing it to 6. If he had been going full auto and hit you are at 10 boxes and hoping for a hit on 3 dice to live. Part of a group and you are resisting like 12 or 13 with 3 dice. I'm actually seeing a lot of one shot kills in 6e unless I as the GM pull my punches in play. I'm fine pulling my punches in not having an overpowered opposition facing them even though its a mega corp. But whatever the opposition is, intentionally playing it worse seems off if they aren't dumb or something.
Now again I felt SR5 was too deadly.They have stated as part of the advertising SR6 is more deadly. The deadlier the game gets for the players the more they generally will move away from Pink Mohawk. I hope it is not more deadly, and that is just marketing. There are a lot of things I think will improve it from SR5, but there are a lot of things that have me worried.
-
if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.
-
if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.
For all of 5E's complexity and crunch, it still could never be described as a "realistic" game engine. If you're going to embrace the cinematic physics paradigm, may as well streamline the rules, neh?
@Stainless: I wonder how many tests will involve Strength?
We know that melee weapons won't be pegged to STR to derive DVs. And because 6E removes Limits and Recoil as game mechanics, obviously Strength can't help in those areas either.
But Strength was relevant to more than just that in 5E. Strength was also involved in:
Carrying capacity/encumbrance
Linked to a few skill tests
Grappling/Physically restraining
Archery
Defending against various magical effects such as Levitation, Binding, Engulf
A minimum strength threshold is established to be allowed to wield some heavy weapons (e.g. machine guns)
No reason to expect that any of those won't still be true in 6E unless/until you hear they won't.
-
I haven't been able to keep up on the latest 6e info, but if they have strength being 1). A determining factor on what melee weapons you can wield, and 2). Str + Close Combat being the attack roll rather than Agi + Close Combat, then strength will still be fairly valuable for melee builds.
-
if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.
I guess it depends on how you are defining the terms BT/PM. Yeah my idea for the Frankie cybog from one piece running around in a speedo and hawaian shirt isn't that less viable than dude in armor and that definitely feels more PM. But, your actions and tactics to survive might need to me far more BT.
-
I haven't been able to keep up on the latest 6e info, but if they have strength being 1). A determining factor on what melee weapons you can wield, and 2). Str + Close Combat being the attack roll rather than Agi + Close Combat, then strength will still be fairly valuable for melee builds.
I cannot wait until Martial Arts. Definitely something that could involve Strength and my never-finished HTR templates contained several techniques, especially for the Pointman who was configured to be able to intercept and disable.
-
I haven't been able to keep up on the latest 6e info, but if they have strength being 1). A determining factor on what melee weapons you can wield, and 2). Str + Close Combat being the attack roll rather than Agi + Close Combat, then strength will still be fairly valuable for melee builds.
I had not thought about #1, but #2 is what I hope happened. Its not a direct line of strength to melee damage but it does help. Admittedly I really hope they just read the rules wrong and strength is tied to Dv in some way. I'm kind of expecting unarmed to not effect it and your base damage to effectively be 0, and only net hits determine damage. as the idea barring magic etc that strong dude hitting you with your fist does more damage than strong dude hitting you with an axe is so asinine I can't think that would get in.
-
if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.
For all of 5E's complexity and crunch, it still could never be described as a "realistic" game engine. If you're going to embrace the cinematic physics paradigm, may as well streamline the rules, neh?
@Stainless: I wonder how many tests will involve Strength?
We know that melee weapons won't be pegged to STR to derive DVs. And because 6E removes Limits and Recoil as game mechanics, obviously Strength can't help in those areas either.
But Strength was relevant to more than just that in 5E. Strength was also involved in:
Carrying capacity/encumbrance
Linked to a few skill tests
Grappling/Physically restraining
Archery
Defending against various magical effects such as Levitation, Binding, Engulf
A minimum strength threshold is established to be allowed to wield some heavy weapons (e.g. machine guns)
No reason to expect that any of those won't still be true in 6E unless/until you hear they won't.
So mechanically not enough to put points into when shit like reaction, intuition etc are around. Basically you put in a courtesy point so your GM doesn't constantly engulf you to make a point.
It's why I assume there is something we are missing, strength has to do more than that. It is too obvious of a flaw. At least previously melee builds would take it. Now, I don't think anyone would take it just so they can use a heavy weapon.
-
str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).
Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.
str adds to your close combat unarmed attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).
-
*stuff*
So mechanically not enough to put points into when shit like reaction, intuition etc are around. Basically you put in a courtesy point so your GM doesn't constantly engulf you to make a point.
It's why I assume there is something we are missing, strength has to do more than that. It is too obvious of a flaw. At least previously melee builds would take it. Now, I don't think anyone would take it just so they can use a heavy weapon.
Well opinions are inherently subjective. There's never an objective answer as to whether a point of Strength is better as a point of Intuition.
However, if you expect to be viable in close combat with low Strength, it's not the "GM making a point" when you're neutralized by an NPC Levitating your combat axe out of your weak little fingers.
-
str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).
Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.
str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).
Jesus, that's just bad. Well I'll most likely house rule it so melee is a strength based skill. How did that get past play test? Did literally no one play a melee character or something.
-
you'd have to ask Banshee, i was not involved in any game design or play-testing, only errata.
-
*stuff*
So mechanically not enough to put points into when shit like reaction, intuition etc are around. Basically you put in a courtesy point so your GM doesn't constantly engulf you to make a point.
It's why I assume there is something we are missing, strength has to do more than that. It is too obvious of a flaw. At least previously melee builds would take it. Now, I don't think anyone would take it just so they can use a heavy weapon.
Well opinions are inherently subjective. There's never an objective answer as to whether a point of Strength is better as a point of Intuition.
However, if you expect to be viable in close combat with low Strength, it's not the "GM making a point" when you're neutralized by an NPC Levitating your combat axe out of your weak little fingers.
So the GM is wasting major actions on being cute, and player then just uses a minor action to quick draw a gun and shoot the mage? The party will thank the 1 strength troll tank for getting the GM to not fireball the party. Getting your attack value up isn't enough of a reason to put points into strength as it does virtually nothing else. Its a reason to avoid weapon based melee builds. Maybe unarmed will work out, but I'm not going to put valuable points into strength to get that little out of it for a katana street sam, I'll just ditch the concept. I routinely make less effective characters, i like A in skills I like my troll decker. But this is mechanically bad past that.
-
you'd have to ask Banshee, i was not involved in any game design or play-testing, only errata.
I'm assuming errata doesn't cover things like this yet.
-
errata is not meant to redesign the game, it's only meant to fix the borked and missing stuff.
so while we're already working on 6e (stainless and carmody have done most of the heavy lifting already) it's only to patch the stuff that's missing, broken or not as intended.
strength and how it works is working as intended afaik
-
I am guessing (without any inside information, mind you) that the decision to take strength out of melee damage + keep it in Unarmed Combat was an attempt to make Unarmed Combat worthwhile.
In 5e, even an Unarmed Combat Adept would almost always do more damage with a weapon, if they just had the skill to use it.
Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.
This reads to me as an attempt to alter that. "Guns can get up to 8+ DV, and so can a Troll in unarmed Combat!"
This is not to say that it makes sense, or works. It is just my take on the intention here.
-
errata is not meant to redesign the game, it's only meant to fix the borked and missing stuff.
so while we're already working on 6e (stainless and carmody have done most of the heavy lifting already) it's only to patch the stuff that's missing, broken or not as intended.
strength and how it works is working as intended afaik
I can't fathom what the intent is here honestly. Luckily a sort of patch house rule is easy. Melee uses strength for the die pool. It should have from the beginning anyways. Agility is more hand eye coordination, balance and delicate action stuff IMO. Strength is your explosive action stat, so it should cover running, jumping, punching, kicking etc.
-
I am guessing (without any inside information, mind you) that the decision to take strength out of melee damage + keep it in Unarmed Combat was an attempt to make Unarmed Combat worthwhile.
In 5e, even an Unarmed Combat Adept would almost always do more damage with a weapon, if they just had the skill to use it.
Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.
This reads to me as an attempt to alter that. "Guns can get up to 8+ DV, and so can a Troll in unarmed Combat!"
This is not to say that it makes sense, or works. It is just my take on the intention here.
Interesting idea. But the skeletons mods which I always should have only given +1DV got you a pretty good edge at up to +3DV which is basically a katana minus the AP and reach. I think the real issue was the capped critical strike at 1DV. In 4E you had your Base DV of 2 and then bumped that to 8 with 6 levels of critical strike. A troll might have a base DV of 5 bumped to 11. So unarmed stayed competitive. It also felt closer to 1-3e as previously killing hands could get up to starting at deadly damage.
I'm not sure there should be a goal to balance unaugmented by either magic or ware unarmed damage with a sword or axe wielded by the same person.But maybe thier were complaints.
Personally I think its just a massive over correction to full strength DV in 5e. They bumped it from 4e to 5e trying to make strength more viable, and went too far I think. Now they over corrected and made it worse than in 4e where it was a bit weak.
-
I am guessing (without any inside information, mind you) that the decision to take strength out of melee damage + keep it in Unarmed Combat was an attempt to make Unarmed Combat worthwhile.
In 5e, even an Unarmed Combat Adept would almost always do more damage with a weapon, if they just had the skill to use it.
Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.
This reads to me as an attempt to alter that. "Guns can get up to 8+ DV, and so can a Troll in unarmed Combat!"
This is not to say that it makes sense, or works. It is just my take on the intention here.
i don't know the motivations for the change but i don't agree with your summation of 5e unarmed vs. melee.
unarmed has a place for high security locations that don't permit weapons AND with correct choices unarmed can be almost as deadly as armed in 5e (bone lacing, striking calluses, knucks, adept powers, etc).
the reason why people use weapons irl is because THEY ARE MORE EFFECTIVE than your fists and feet. To not have that reflected in-game seems idiotic to me tbh.
-
I am guessing (without any inside information, mind you) that the decision to take strength out of melee damage + keep it in Unarmed Combat was an attempt to make Unarmed Combat worthwhile.
In 5e, even an Unarmed Combat Adept would almost always do more damage with a weapon, if they just had the skill to use it.
Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.
This reads to me as an attempt to alter that. "Guns can get up to 8+ DV, and so can a Troll in unarmed Combat!"
This is not to say that it makes sense, or works. It is just my take on the intention here.
Interesting idea. But the skeletons mods which I always should have only given +1DV got you a pretty good edge at up to +3DV which is basically a katana minus the AP and reach. I think the real issue was the capped critical strike at 1DV. In 4E you had your Base DV of 2 and then bumped that to 8 with 6 levels of critical strike. A troll might have a base DV of 5 bumped to 11. So unarmed stayed competitive. It also felt closer to 1-3e as previously killing hands could get up to starting at deadly damage.
I'm not sure there should be a goal to balance unaugmented by either magic or ware unarmed damage with a sword or axe wielded by the same person.But maybe thier were complaints.
Personally I think its just a massive over correction to full strength DV in 5e. They bumped it from 4e to 5e trying to make strength more viable, and went too far I think. Now they over corrected and made it worse than in 4e where it was a bit weak.
I mostly agree, except I think magic is the exception. If an adept kicks harder than a combat axe is have 0 issues with it. He's not jut kicking you, he is channeling deadly magic into your body. It's is no weirder to me than a fireball hitting harder than a axe.
-
unarmed has a place for high security locations that don't permit weapons
Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.
... AND with correct choices unarmed can be almost as deadly as armed in 5e (bone lacing, striking calluses, knucks, adept powers, etc).
This completely negates your first point of this statement.
If Unarmed Combat is useful in high security locations, it effectiveness is completely negated by needing bone lacing, knucks and such that will be detected in said high security locations.
Adept Powers can only add 1 DV, as Shinobi Killfist has stated.
Striking Calluses are hit or miss on if they are detectable. Besides, they were dumbly written.
-
you claim my point about unarmed being almost as useful as melee is not true because you can't get unarmed augmentations into secure areas.
that's clearly crap, it's a lot easier to detect a knife or sword than bone lacing or striking calluses
and then you complain about how a specific piece of kit (calluses) were poorly written and so should be ignored?
wtf is the relevance of that exactly?
the basic premise still stands, unarmed has a place in 5e that melee weapons don't fill well and when optimized for it an unarmed character can do almost as well as a melee combatant.
-
the basic premise still stands, unarmed has a place in 5e that melee weapons don't fill well and when optimized for it an unarmed character can do almost as well as a melee combatant.
You keep ignoring:
Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.
Just to continue your fight. (Emphasis added for your benefit.)
and then you complain about how a specific piece of kit (calluses) were poorly written and so should be ignored?
wtf is the relevance of that exactly?
The f'n relevance is:
You get more benefit with more calluses installed when you don't get more benefit from multiple knucks, for example.
And how, exactly, do you justify multiple calluses providing increased Unarmed Combat bonuses, when wearing mil-spec armor - for example - doesn't provide the very same benefit?
Striking Calluses are the bioware equivelant of the Rain Forest Carbine. Poorly written.
-
So, to sort of summarize:
In 5e, you can never really be as good at fighting unarmed as you can be fighting with a weapon (which makes sense, as a solid metal blade will be sturdier than a foot).
You can still be reasonably good at fighting unarmed, for various reasons (to be able to attack even when disarmed, to put a slap-patch on someone, for a surprise attack, or what-have-you).
The striking callus should have common sense errata applied by the GM as needed, in case a player asks if they stack or something.
I do also think that, with equal skill, you should be able to hit harder with a club than with a fist, unless you're an adept who's invested that way.
So I don't see much of a problem with the way 5e handles it. I do want to know why 6e apparently de-coupled STR from hand-to-hand weapon damage, and I assume it's due to other reasons we haven't been able to hear yet.
-
So, to sort of summarize:
In 5e, you can never really be as good at fighting unarmed as you can be fighting with a weapon (which makes sense, as a solid metal blade will be sturdier than a foot).
You can still be reasonably good at fighting unarmed, for various reasons (to be able to attack even when disarmed, to put a slap-patch on someone, for a surprise attack, or what-have-you).
The striking callus should have common sense errata applied by the GM as needed, in case a player asks if they stack or something.
I do also think that, with equal skill, you should be able to hit harder with a club than with a fist, unless you're an adept who's invested that way.
So I don't see much of a problem with the way 5e handles it. I do want to know why 6e apparently de-coupled STR from hand-to-hand weapon damage, and I assume it's due to other reasons we haven't been able to hear yet.
My only guess was to reduce multiple attribute dependency for combatants. One less attribute you need for offense. At this point they should have just ditched the attribute and made the small amount left of the stat part of body.
I like some of what I heard. I like removing force from spells though I wish they had done the same for spirits, and instead of a structured up cast I would have preferred a simple over and under cast mechanic. Basically a cantrip version, a standard version and a going all out version. But still it is a step in the right direction IMO. I like the one pass a turn idea. I'm not sure they implemented it right, and the loss of free actions I think is a bad idea as there is nothing exciting about using actions for chewing gum, but hey if you have your cyber jaw wirelessly enabled I'm sure you get a bonus minor aciton to do that so you can chew gum and walk at the same time. Still again, I think its a good step in the right direction, that probably just needs some finessing, hopefully a supplement that has new maneuvers will be that finesse. I like what we have for the most part seen from edge, the causing enemies to glitch more often is questionable but overall I do like the concept of a pool that you can grow and generate quickly in play that is frequently used for usually somewhat minor effects. Kind of reminds me of a combat pool from earlier editions. Sure you might want to go all out and use 4 edge and shoot 3 gangers at no penalty, but if they are still up and shoot at you you might not have the edge to survive it. It sounds like a fun mechanic.
Not happy with the metahuman changes, or strength being decoupled from melee. I have nothing positive to say about either of those. The strength one seems really bad.
-
str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).
Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.
str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).
For my clarification, is this confirmed via your eyes seeing the material or first hand from Hardy/Banshee ect? I only ask because there appears to be a lot of disconnect between the quick start rules, actual book rules, and people running things incorrectly in the podcasts and such. Hard to tell what is what at this point.
-
Oh, also, even though I don't personally mind whether there's a list of dice pool modifiers, or a list of What Grants Edge, either way, that's what handy GM screen cheat sheets are for.
-
str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).
Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.
str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).
For my clarification, is this confirmed via your eyes seeing the material or first hand from Hardy/Banshee ect? I only ask because there appears to be a lot of disconnect between the quick start rules, actual book rules, and people running things incorrectly in the podcasts and such. Hard to tell what is what at this point.
my eyes on the core book
-
Thanks Adzling.
That said, I am both baffled and speechless at how that change could have possibly been seen as either good or thematically appropriate.
-
Thanks Adzling.
That said, I am both baffled and speechless at how that change could have possibly been seen as either good or thematically appropriate.
My snarky answer is if you look at the deadlift weight rules their concept of strength ranged from scrawny 5 year old to scrawny 12 year old. It’s cool to see that I’m peak human strength in shadowrun land despite being a middling deadlifter.
On a thematic level I’m guessing they are trying to reinforce the tv/movie thing where skinny super model tosses 250lb muscle bound dude around with ease.
-
str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).
Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.
str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).
For my clarification, is this confirmed via your eyes seeing the material or first hand from Hardy/Banshee ect? I only ask because there appears to be a lot of disconnect between the quick start rules, actual book rules, and people running things incorrectly in the podcasts and such. Hard to tell what is what at this point.
my eyes on the core book
The only way I can begin to comprehend why they would divorce Str from Melee weapon damages is if the weapon damages are notably higher than most viable unarmed damage and/or there are minimum Str requirements to wield certain weapons. Are you able/willing to confirm/deny these?
OK, I lied, still can't begin to comprehend why....I mean, a scrawny pixie with a knife does the same as troll hulk? I can't think of a single explanation that can justify that one to me. If "game balance" is the excuse, then another look at the basic game mechanics should have been done first. I can only suspend my disbelief so far.
-
str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).
Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.
str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).
For my clarification, is this confirmed via your eyes seeing the material or first hand from Hardy/Banshee ect? I only ask because there appears to be a lot of disconnect between the quick start rules, actual book rules, and people running things incorrectly in the podcasts and such. Hard to tell what is what at this point.
my eyes on the core book
The only way I can begin to comprehend why they would divorce Str from Melee weapon damages is if the weapon damages are notably higher than most viable unarmed damage and/or there are minimum Str requirements to wield certain weapons. Are you able/willing to confirm/deny these?
OK, I lied, still can't begin to comprehend why....I mean, a scrawny pixie with a knife does the same as troll hulk? I can't think of a single explanation that can justify that one to me. If "game balance" is the excuse, then another look at the basic game mechanics should have been done first. I can only suspend my disbelief so far.
Okay on the game balance side of it. Let’s say it was 1/2 strength again. A dagger 1+5 for a troll would be assault cannon damage. Same troll with a sword more than that. And that’s not a super enhanced troll. Just a normally strong one. The lesser damage from other attacks may have forced it as it starts getting unwieldy if it’s 1/3 strength or something. I am curious how normal unarmed works now, and hell killing hands. Does killing hands just set a damage.
That being said the easy fix was too tie the dice pool to strength which makes more sense in the first place outside any balance discussion. Virtually everything you are doing in a fight is strength based. And this actually in effect comes close to 1/3 str damage. A bit more because missing is 0 damage and you’d hit more often. Simple house rule to fix their terrible rule.
-
STR being pulled off melee weapons, the changes to initiative, the skills squash, the potential clusterfrag that edge apparently is, and other such things make me nervous. It is like they decided to purposefully not make the mistakes of 5e by doing all new ones. Waiting until it comes out so I can get a good look at things, but...
-
the reason why people use weapons irl is because THEY ARE MORE EFFECTIVE than your fists and feet. To not have that reflected in-game seems idiotic to me tbh.
Others have complained about the loss of pink mohawk play, but this seems to me a change to increase it.
You're absolutely right it's not realistic. Neither are kung-fu movies or movies where the protagonists wield katanas against goons using SMGs. Any game system that makes martial arts, melee, and guns each competitive with the other is clearly going for a cinematic feel.
Will it work? Dunno. I'm looking forward to finding out.
-
the reason why people use weapons irl is because THEY ARE MORE EFFECTIVE than your fists and feet. To not have that reflected in-game seems idiotic to me tbh.
Others have complained about the loss of pink mohawk play, but this seems to me a change to increase it.
You're absolutely right it's not realistic. Neither are kung-fu movies or movies where the protagonists wield katanas against goons using SMGs. Any game system that makes martial arts, melee, and guns each competitive with the other is clearly going for a cinematic feel.
Will it work? Dunno. I'm looking forward to finding out.
Melee and guns shouldn't be 'competitive', except in the idea that it is harder to get a shot on someone that is in melee (either with you or with someone else) and that melee is useless until you actually get in melee range. Guns should always be the 'mechanical' winner, while melee is for situations where guns can't be used or are impractical (bar brawls, trying to be quiet, limited ammunition, sneak attacking a sentry, etc.). And this is coming from someone who played several melee-focused characters in 4E, when guns were just against Reaction for the defense test, while melee did REA+INT. Yes, ranged was the superior option. But melee is damn cool, and has uses where ranged might not be the best choice. Using something because it looks cool is far more of the Pink Mohawk thing than having everything be competitive.
-
I guess is depends on how you define effective. If it’s purely damage I have no problem with melee being as effective or even more so with magic. Guns just have advantages melee can’t compete with. Mainly range.
-
While I am not aware of exactly how strength will factor into unarmed melee damage, I will find it absolutely hysterical if it turns out that maximum strength characters end up doing more damage with unarmed strikes than the same hulks wielding an axe, or sword, or sledgehammer.
-
While I am not aware of exactly how strength will factor into unarmed melee damage, I will find it absolutely hysterical if it turns out that maximum strength characters end up doing more damage with unarmed strikes than the same hulks wielding an axe, or sword, or sledgehammer.
Yeah even a combat knife makes no sense. And that’s I think damage 1. Hell the improved skeletons cyberware could quickly be a detriment to damage since they are 1,2,3 for plastic-titanium.
I think a somewhat coherent system with those damages would be unarmed base damage 0. And all melee skills based on strength. But alas we know that is not to be.
-
I´m on the fence about the Strength thing.
As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value. That does make some sense for many melee weapons, especially Blades and Knifes. The most important factor with bladed and pointed weapons is where you hit, not how much muscle you put behind it. That´s why I actually find SR5 more unrealistic in this regard: A swift surprise attacker with a knife is a deadly threat in reality, even if it´s just some lanky methhead. However, in SR5 that Methhead (or BTL-Junkie) would never be able to significantly hurt you, even with a lucky hit. Strength was everything. Now, Strength can only give you - well - a bit of an Edge. That somewhat fits, at least for these kind of weapons. And while it doesn´t fit as good with weapons like Clubs or Axes: Lifting an axe over your head and smash it straight down is something even a Strength 1 nerd should be able to pull off. It will be a shitty performance though, which will likely give the opposition Edge as well. And if that´s not enough punishment for the potential 1-Strength Axe murderer build, the GM could also argue with encumbrance: "Yeah, you can take your Axe, but not much stuff beyond that".
There are still two major problems here:
- The whole Attack Value/Armor/Edge-mechanic (as far as we know so far) is likely to be a total disaster. 1 Edge isn´t doing much of a difference, and with a maximum of 2 Edge per pass (or is it per round? Yeah, it´s probably per round, since that would be even worse ::)), Strength will often yield no benefit at all - Just like armor. If that whole mechanic wouldn´t be so stupid, there would be much less grief about Strengt only counting for the Attack value.
- With unarmed Attacks still using Strength for the purpose of Damage Calculation, Strength-maxed Characters would be more dangerous unarmed than with a melee weapon - and that just isn´t realistic, let alone balanced. The main advantage of unarmed combat is that it´s available everywhere. Using a weapon should always be more of threat than using your fists alone (apart from adepts, maybe).
There are easy fixes to these problems. One would be to tweak the Attack Value/Armor/Edge clusterfuck interaction into something more reasonable and rewarding. Shouldn´t be too hard, and it´s also a good idea when looking at the other half of that problem (armor being almost useless for avoiding damage and giving you magic mojo points instead). The other would be an option to further buff the damage of Melee weapons for exceptionally stong characters. It´s just really telling that the writers weren´t able to see these pitfalls themselfes...
-
While I am not aware of exactly how strength will factor into unarmed melee damage, I will find it absolutely hysterical if it turns out that maximum strength characters end up doing more damage with unarmed strikes than the same hulks wielding an axe, or sword, or sledgehammer.
It's Hulk smash, not Hulk axe!
-
There is old "Stun vs Physical damage" dimension as well to factor in when considering Unarmed vs Weapons.
-
Knucks, Bone ware, Killing Hands.
-
I´m on the fence about the Strength thing.
As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value. That does make some sense for many melee weapons, especially Blades and Knifes. The most important factor with bladed and pointed weapons is where you hit, not how much muscle you put behind it. That´s why I actually find SR5 more unrealistic in this regard: A swift surprise attacker with a knife is a deadly threat in reality, even if it´s just some lanky methhead. However, in SR5 that Methhead (or BTL-Junkie) would never be able to significantly hurt you, even with a lucky hit. Strength was everything. Now, Strength can only give you - well - a bit of an Edge. That somewhat fits, at least for these kind of weapons. And while it doesn´t fit as good with weapons like Clubs or Axes: Lifting an axe over your head and smash it straight down is something even a Strength 1 nerd should be able to pull off. It will be a shitty performance though, which will likely give the opposition Edge as well. And if that´s not enough punishment for the potential 1-Strength Axe murderer build, the GM could also argue with encumbrance: "Yeah, you can take your Axe, but not much stuff beyond that".
There are still two major problems here:
- The whole Attack Value/Armor/Edge-mechanic (as far as we know so far) is likely to be a total disaster. 1 Edge isn´t doing much of a difference, and with a maximum of 2 Edge per pass (or is it per round? Yeah, it´s probably per round, since that would be even worse ::)), Strength will often yield no benefit at all - Just like armor. If that whole mechanic wouldn´t be so stupid, there would be much less grief about Strengt only counting for the Attack value.
- With unarmed Attacks still using Strength for the purpose of Damage Calculation, Strength-maxed Characters would be more dangerous unarmed than with a melee weapon - and that just isn´t realistic, let alone balanced. The main advantage of unarmed combat is that it´s available everywhere. Using a weapon should always be more of threat than using your fists alone (apart from adepts, maybe).
There are easy fixes to these problems. One would be to tweak the Attack Value/Armor/Edge clusterfuck interaction into something more reasonable and rewarding. Shouldn´t be too hard, and it´s also a good idea when looking at the other half of that problem (armor being almost useless for avoiding damage and giving you magic mojo points instead). The other would be an option to further buff the damage of Melee weapons for exceptionally stong characters. It´s just really telling that the writers weren´t able to see these pitfalls themselfes...
Even for blades strength is a huge factor. Yes in real life a blade is very dangerous. In real life I’m not wearing armor that stops assault rifle rounds though. Naked dude against lanky guy with a knife is taking 5+ damage a hit in 5e. Called shot 7+. That’s pretty reflective of a knifes damage. Set damage 1 though not so much. Outside compared to a pistols 3 damage
But with melee combat even blades strength determines a ton about the blow and your ability to get past defenses. It is what would define the dice pool realistically.
But outside that look I hit your artery attack with a blade. Stab a hibk of meat. How deep the wound is depends on strength now include bones or armor blocking the path etc. Your ability to get to the organs is based on strength. 1 edge won’t reflect that in the slightest.
-
As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value.
That is not really significant, considering:
1). Any weapon does the same thing, regardless of Attribute ratings in the case of ranged weapons (which have a set number).
2). Even with the Initiative changes, I am very skeptical that combats will last more than a round or two at most. Edge accumulation doesn't seem like it will be a major factor if that is accurate. You touched more on this later in your post though, which we seem to be largely in agreement on.
There is old "Stun vs Physical damage" dimension as well to factor in when considering Unarmed vs Weapons.
If that is as easy to negate in 6th as it is in 5th, it's a non-factor.
-
Even for blades strength is a huge factor. Yes in real life a blade is very dangerous. In real life I’m not wearing armor that stops assault rifle rounds though. Naked dude against lanky guy with a knife is taking 5+ damage a hit in 5e. Called shot 7+. That’s pretty reflective of a knifes damage. Set damage 1 though not so much. Outside compared to a pistols 3 damage
But with melee combat even blades strength determines a ton about the blow and your ability to get past defenses. It is what would define the dice pool realistically.
But outside that look I hit your artery attack with a blade. Stab a hibk of meat. How deep the wound is depends on strength now include bones or armor blocking the path etc. Your ability to get to the organs is based on strength. 1 edge won’t reflect that in the slightest.
A story somewhat related to the topic:
I was a professional prize fighter for over a decade. That pic on my profile was me about a year short of my prime. 6'2", 238 lbs, 19" arms, bench press a little over 300 lbs. I had a Russian friend, who was an absolute monster of a man, named Volya. Dude was something like 6'8", 380 lbs., and he had a tattoo of an anchor on his left arm that was the size of my entire arm, and it maybe took up about 2/3-3/4 of his arm. I once watched him sheer an old solid metal 70's buick car door right in half, horizontally, with a battered claymore. That thing was barely even sharp anymore.
We don't really have ork, troll, or supernatural human level strength to compare such things with, but Volya was the closest thing to it I have ever seen, and for him, power absolutely mattered in any blow he struck, with anything, period.
Like a lot of huge guys his size, he died way too young. Miss that guy.
-
Melee and guns shouldn't be 'competitive', except in the idea that it is harder to get a shot on someone that is in melee (either with you or with someone else)
AIUI this is not realistic either. IIRC Winston Churchill was in the last generation of soldiers to be issued swords for actual use (as well as pistols; Afghan war, late 1800s), and afterwards he made sure swords were essentially eliminated from the british military, as they were no match for a pistol even in close fighting.
But melee is damn cool, and has uses where ranged might not be the best choice. Using something because it looks cool is far more of the Pink Mohawk thing than having everything be competitive.
I agree. As I said, I'm okay with the conceptual choice of making close-combat, melee, and ranged characters all viable, even if doing that requires throwing the book out on realism. Others may disagree, and I'm cool with that too.
-
What is issued in war isn’t necessarily a good example of how effective it is. Standardized training is a huge factor in what is issued.
That being said even at close ranges guns have advantages. You can’t block or dodge a bullet, close isn’t melee it’s Still ranged where melee can’t do anything. The training required to be competent at guns is vastly less than melee.
But you rarely miss with a kick or punch. They may avoid or block it but you don’t miss. People just flat out miss at short ranges with guns. And fairly frequently.
Question is though how much or little is negated by people running 60mph, being able to kick down bank vault doors, have claws that can cut through armored cars etc.
I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea how to accurately reflect that in game. 4e kind of did it decently as an abstraction with the extra defense dice I think.
A lot is negated by the use of a turn based system. I’m not moving towards you as you line up a shot and shoot. I basically teleport to your side and kick your head in and then you line up a shot and shoot while I stand there.
A huge advantage of guns is negated by turn based movement.
-
I think people will figure out to use it quick. But if it fails then what?
You don’t have a decent soak to fall back on when you roll bad or just don’t have the minor action.
They will roll up new characters and start playing the game as Black Trenchcoat as they can. Players and GMs who don't like playing Black Trenchcoat (whether or not they already knew it) will either return to a previous edition of their choosing or stop playing Shadowrun altogether. I'm calling it now.
Guess I’ll be playing something else then. Forced Black Trenchcoat can go burn in hell. I like my Mohawk Fix or at least the option to do either. 5e was also highly BT in my opinion and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Let the gaming tables make the options of which direction to go, not the game developers
The damage-numbers and mechanics teased suggest that while massive armies of mooks become more dangerous, there's less chance of being one-shotted. Don't forget, in SR4 and SR5 a sniper can easily one-shot you when they get the drop on you unless your armour is crazy high. Only actual time can tell us if this still exists in SR6, but lower damage and lower soak numbers means less 'holy crap a bad soak roll completely wiped me'. I've had players roll 1 hit on over 10 dice even after reroll, so then they'd drop like a fly in SR5. In SR4 there's a Mission where the sniper deliberately fires a paintball first, and his superior initiative still meant that I (too obviously unfortunately) fudged a killing shot.
Also, my SR5 campaign was pretty pink mohawk so I'm a bit surprised to hear that apparently I've been doing it wrong?_?
Anyway, if players wipe too easily, it suggests either the players should be a bit more tactical in the fights they pick, or the GM needs to adjust to the new balance. It doesn't mean we are forced into Black Trenchcoat. So the massive negativity here is extremely surprising. You're playing together with, not against, the GM, so the PM vs BT is still something that explicitly depends on the table.
@Stainless: I wonder how many tests will involve Strength?
Yeah in SR well anything there are items that can one shot you easily. SR5 I felt was too deadly. Assault Rifles a sort of corp goon norm had a base damage of 11 2 AP, two net hits and you are looking at 13DV. Assuming a fairly normal set up for a runner they had 15ish dice to resists, on average knocking it down to 8, a point of edge knocking it down to 5ish. Now you maybe got hit more since the auofire reduced your dodge dice. But that was another place where you had a chance to save yourself. With cover probably canceling out most of that dodge penalty.
Currently according to what people have stated, assault rifles damage 5 but can be boosted to 7/8 with autofire, their dice pool can go up if firing as a group and I think each group member adds 1 DV. Now low rent types have a solid chance to hit you, and when they hit its devastating. Now lets assume non group, 2 net hits on a auto fire attack. Damage is 9, but you only roll 3 dice, so 8. Seems kind of the same place, but you need 1edge on hand to reroll each failure, and you are kind of capping at reducing it to 6. If he had been going full auto and hit you are at 10 boxes and hoping for a hit on 3 dice to live. Part of a group and you are resisting like 12 or 13 with 3 dice. I'm actually seeing a lot of one shot kills in 6e unless I as the GM pull my punches in play. I'm fine pulling my punches in not having an overpowered opposition facing them even though its a mega corp. But whatever the opposition is, intentionally playing it worse seems off if they aren't dumb or something.
Now again I felt SR5 was too deadly.They have stated as part of the advertising SR6 is more deadly. The deadlier the game gets for the players the more they generally will move away from Pink Mohawk. I hope it is not more deadly, and that is just marketing. There are a lot of things I think will improve it from SR5, but there are a lot of things that have me worried.
...+1.
Also the deadlier the game the less some may want to even bother playing at all.
-
Also the deadlier the game the less some may want to even bother playing at all.
Yeah, I remember the first Traveler. One could have his character die many times, even during character creation, before one would develop an attachment to that character.
While burning Edge can make up for a really bad die roll, or rolls, having to do it many times would drive me away from Shadowrun.
-
Honestly, they said SR5 would be deadly and even then it played fine in my games, so I'm not going to assume SR6 will be extremely deadly without a choice yet. Maybe if I pull out Red Samurai, sure, or throw thirty gangers at my players. But honestly at that point the problem is the GM, not the system. All more grunts does is simplify by having them be a bit more threatening in a group and increase their dicepool a bit, in return for only 1 attack instead of 5. Saves time and actually doesn't strike me as far more lethal. And worst case we can just add some houserules.
-
Honestly, they said SR5 would be deadly and even then it played fine in my games, so I'm not going to assume SR6 will be extremely deadly without a choice yet. Maybe if I pull out Red Samurai, sure, or throw thirty gangers at my players. But honestly at that point the problem is the GM, not the system. All more grunts does is simplify by having them be a bit more threatening in a group and increase their dicepool a bit, in return for only 1 attack instead of 5. Saves time and actually doesn't strike me as far more lethal. And worst case we can just add some houserules.
Almost any game you can tone down the opposition enough that it’s not deadly. Early Chicago missions were survivable without me modifying much. Maybe drop a goon or two when the table wasn’t full. Late season 6, early season 7. There were tons of groups where it’s a team of 5 sams with firearms skill 10 agility 7 areas alphas loaded with apds and enough recoil comp to deal with a long burst with decker and mage backup. Maybe some teams build so all the players can be shot at by that, we don’t min max anywhere near that degree. Even with trimmed down dice pools, due to how deadly the ares alpha and other assault rifles are every player has burned edge to survive at least once.
SR5 May work for your group but it was distinctly more deadly than 4e. I’m already weakening opposition pretty far to fit my tables style. Weakening more might break the settings feel.
-
Honestly, I suspect SR6 Goon-rules are less lethal than SR5's: If they do 1 attack, it means you only get damaged once, and you don't suffer the constant 'already got fired on' accumulative penalty. So the last attack of a group of goons already had more chance to hit in SR5 than the combined attack has in SR6. Wouldn't surprise me if the final numbers end up less damage on average in SR6 than in SR5 from the same Rating group of enemies.
As for weakening opposition: I've tossed them Blood Mages, Toxic Mages, Cyberzombie Shedims, an army of Juggernaut drones, a massive ambush by corp anti-sinless terrorists, an entire Bug Hive, a Corporate Hit Squad... Didn't feel like I was breaking the setting. Sounds more like a problem with average required level for Missions than with the game itself.
-
Now again I felt SR5 was too deadly.They have stated as part of the advertising SR6 is more deadly. The deadlier the game gets for the players the more they generally will move away from Pink Mohawk. I hope it is not more deadly, and that is just marketing. There are a lot of things I think will improve it from SR5, but there are a lot of things that have me worried.
...+1.
Also the deadlier the game the less some may want to even bother playing at all.
The combination of "easier to take damage" and "we're giving you 1 major + any amount of minor actions depending on init dice and other bonuses (...instead of SR5's 1 complex OR 2 simple actions)" says to me that they are making the game more tactical.
Soooo...this is nothing but my guess, but for what it's worth, I'd guess that choices like "I stand there in the open trading blows with the bad guy" or "I stand there and hose down the area with gunfire," are much more likely to get you killed, because integrating the use of those minors into your combat plan ("I fire and move to cover") is the substitute for big armor. Again, nothing but my guess.
-
Now again I felt SR5 was too deadly.They have stated as part of the advertising SR6 is more deadly. The deadlier the game gets for the players the more they generally will move away from Pink Mohawk. I hope it is not more deadly, and that is just marketing. There are a lot of things I think will improve it from SR5, but there are a lot of things that have me worried.
...+1.
Also the deadlier the game the less some may want to even bother playing at all.
The combination of "easier to take damage" and "we're giving you 1 major + any amount of minor actions depending on init dice and other bonuses (...instead of SR5's 1 complex OR 2 simple actions)" says to me that they are making the game more tactical.
Soooo...this is nothing but my guess, but for what it's worth, I'd guess that choices like "I stand there in the open trading blows with the bad guy" or "I stand there and hose down the area with gunfire," are much more likely to get you killed, because integrating the use of those minors into your combat plan ("I fire and move to cover") is the substitute for big armor. Again, nothing but my guess.
I think the new edge system plays a similar role, where you are making constant tactical decisions on how to use it, how much to use, when to try to build it up etc. And for that I think the edge system may end up being a pretty good system with made some poorly designed edge manuevers.
When it comes to the actions I am a bit more leery. More tactical sounds good but at what cost. As a quick example. Lets say face B is in a room, cover is 6 meters away, a table is in the way, goons are drawing guns its going down. The face decides they want to move to the cover, draw a gun, shoot at the dudes. Something like while I run towards the cover while drawing my gun firing off a shot at Goon A, I slide across the table into the cover of the heavy planter box behind it. How many actions was that? Its not a mystical hyperspeed series of actions, it is something a athletic person could do as they multitask some actions. If its more than 2 minors and 1 major the cost of being more tactical is your characters competence. You need cyber or magic to hit fairly basic levels of physical competence. It could be removing the cinematic though practical action for less exciting more static ones. I'm okay with less stand out in the middle of a room blazing away. But if they need ware to get to cover while drawing a gun and shooting or other fairly basic practical but maybe entertainingly described actions I will think it was a mistake.
We may have 2 minors and one major instead of 2 simple actions but if I normally would have used 3 free actions on top of that and those are now minor actions, I'm losing actions. And i'm not talking super cyber guy being down to 2 attacks actions, but like everyone doing everything and perhaps to a point I as a overweight middle age dude start feeling more coordinated than my professional runner, because i mastered the amazing chew gum and walk at the same time technique. The loss of free actions is big especially movement IMO. it may create a much more static field, not using a minor to move when you need to save it for a dodge action may be more tactical but its also more boring.
-
So I may be reading to much into this, but it seem the major argument here is.
I can stand in the middle of an empty hall way with a machine-gun and unload on 6+ guards while they can kill me anymore.
That don't seem like shadowrun to me but each to their own.
-
Hopefully that poorly written and defined rule for perceiving/noticing Magic is corrected or deep sixed to a septic tank.
-
So I may be reading to much into this, but it seem the major argument here is.
I can stand in the middle of an empty hall way with a machine-gun and unload on 6+ guards while they can kill me anymore.
That don't seem like shadowrun to me but each to their own.
Other than tank builds I never noticed anyone doing that in previous editions. I guess melee characters to some degree as well. They might be able to take on 6 security guards but yeah wired reflexes have always been about moving so fast you were effectively multiple people. But stand in the middle of a hallway, I didn’t see it.
-
Hopefully that poorly written and defined rule for perceiving/noticing Magic is corrected or deep sixed to a septic tank.
It will have to change a bit since force doesn’t exist anymore.
But yes I don’t think it was clear when people even got a test.
-
So I may be reading to much into this, but it seem the major argument here is.
I can stand in the middle of an empty hall way with a machine-gun and unload on 6+ guards while they can kill me anymore.
That don't seem like shadowrun to me but each to their own.
Other than tank builds I never noticed anyone doing that in previous editions. I guess melee characters to some degree as well. They might be able to take on 6 security guards but yeah wired reflexes have always been about moving so fast you were effectively multiple people. But stand in the middle of a hallway, I didn’t see it.
This was not directed at any single event.
It was more of a comment on most of the complaints I have read about the new armor and soak rules.
And how it seems that some people are surprised that bullets hurt. ;)
Me, I guess my players and I are more of a BT group, because they instinctively run for cover in doorways and behind deck/tables etc.
Even my brother the Troll, will hide behind a doorway and take shots from there.
The idea of not being tactical in an RPG would never occur to them.
So to make I long story short I see no problems with the new armor and soak rules and feel they will add more flavor and logic to the combat round.
That is until someone find and post how to brake them. ::)
-
That is until someone find and post how to break them. ::)
Challenge accepted! *cannot wait until he can read this stuff and prepare an open event*
Edit: Actually I'm just going to be cruel, grab my SR5 Knight Errant HTR templates, and make them even nastier in SR6... I want a PR4 team to already feel like PR6, by support and gear. Need to make the runners fear them and run from the police... Will be fun to do... *insert evil laughter here*
-
Also the deadlier the game the less some may want to even bother playing at all.
Yeah, I remember the first Traveler. One could have his character die many times, even during character creation, before one would develop an attachment to that character.
While burning Edge can make up for a really bad die roll, or rolls, having to do it many times would drive me away from Shadowrun.
...yeah same here, almost would seem more like a P&P version of Halo without the cheats to survive.
-
Now again I felt SR5 was too deadly.They have stated as part of the advertising SR6 is more deadly. The deadlier the game gets for the players the more they generally will move away from Pink Mohawk. I hope it is not more deadly, and that is just marketing. There are a lot of things I think will improve it from SR5, but there are a lot of things that have me worried.
...+1.
Also the deadlier the game the less some may want to even bother playing at all.
The combination of "easier to take damage" and "we're giving you 1 major + any amount of minor actions depending on init dice and other bonuses (...instead of SR5's 1 complex OR 2 simple actions)" says to me that they are making the game more tactical.
Soooo...this is nothing but my guess, but for what it's worth, I'd guess that choices like "I stand there in the open trading blows with the bad guy" or "I stand there and hose down the area with gunfire," are much more likely to get you killed, because integrating the use of those minors into your combat plan ("I fire and move to cover") is the substitute for big armor. Again, nothing but my guess.
...and unless you are an amped up combat monster tank, you'll be spending most if not all of your actions doing the "duck and cover" to avoid being geeked particularly against grouped oppos.
I think about several of the Chicago Missions I've been on where the team took hits but were able to tough it out and survive which with the new system would become multiple PC kills (the Tennessee scenario comes to mind for a couple).
-
So I may be reading to much into this, but it seem the major argument here is.
I can stand in the middle of an empty hall way with a machine-gun and unload on 6+ guards while they can kill me anymore.
That don't seem like shadowrun to me but each to their own.
Other than tank builds I never noticed anyone doing that in previous editions. I guess melee characters to some degree as well. They might be able to take on 6 security guards but yeah wired reflexes have always been about moving so fast you were effectively multiple people. But stand in the middle of a hallway, I didn’t see it.
This was not directed at any single event.
It was more of a comment on most of the complaints I have read about the new armor and soak rules.
And how it seems that some people are surprised that bullets hurt. ;)
Me, I guess my players and I are more of a BT group, because they instinctively run for cover in doorways and behind deck/tables etc.
Even my brother the Troll, will hide behind a doorway and take shots from there.
The idea of not being tactical in an RPG would never occur to them.
So to make I long story short I see no problems with the new armor and soak rules and feel they will add more flavor and logic to the combat round.
That is until someone find and post how to brake them. ::)
I think there is a difference between thinking a armor coat should stop bullets cold and thinking it should be at least slightly effective. So far given how quick fights traditionally are and what I’ve seen of edge running naked into a fight is pretty damn close to wearing a full suit of armor.
Edit to add. And this is coming from someone who thought the 4/5e armor system sucked due to ridiculous soak pools of like 40dice for tank builds. Making them tougher than a literal tank. Something like armor is rated 1-3 for clothes each point gives 1 auto hit on your soak. Apds ammo is ap1 guns don’t have ap built in. Maybe bump listed damages we have heard so far by 1 to 2. Armor does something but nothing like a literal tank.
Catalyst over corrects far too often. This, strength going from full strength being your dv to it not effecting it. The last one is hilarious to me since they increased it in 5e as it was perceived as not effective enough on 4e. So they over corrected to the point it’s weaker by far than 4e.
-
Now again I felt SR5 was too deadly.They have stated as part of the advertising SR6 is more deadly. The deadlier the game gets for the players the more they generally will move away from Pink Mohawk. I hope it is not more deadly, and that is just marketing. There are a lot of things I think will improve it from SR5, but there are a lot of things that have me worried.
...+1.
Also the deadlier the game the less some may want to even bother playing at all.
The combination of "easier to take damage" and "we're giving you 1 major + any amount of minor actions depending on init dice and other bonuses (...instead of SR5's 1 complex OR 2 simple actions)" says to me that they are making the game more tactical.
Soooo...this is nothing but my guess, but for what it's worth, I'd guess that choices like "I stand there in the open trading blows with the bad guy" or "I stand there and hose down the area with gunfire," are much more likely to get you killed, because integrating the use of those minors into your combat plan ("I fire and move to cover") is the substitute for big armor. Again, nothing but my guess.
...and unless you are an amped up combat monster tank, you'll be spending most if not all of your actions doing the "duck and cover" to avoid being geeked particularly against grouped oppos.
I think about several of the Chicago Missions I've been on where the team took hits but were able to tough it out and survive which with the new system would become multiple PC kills (the Tennessee scenario comes to mind for a couple).
Funnily enough the only people Id feel particularly motivated to put armor on is the high body trolls types. I’m not worried about giving the gm a edge or two across the fight. But if I can regenerate edge I over used it’s not bad. But my 4 body elf probably never will be 4 higher than the attack value no matter what armor I wear. So why bother.
-
Funnily enough the only people Id feel particularly motivated to put armor on is the high body trolls types. I’m not worried about giving the gm a edge or two across the fight. But if I can regenerate edge I over used it’s not bad. But my 4 body elf probably never will be 4 higher than the attack value no matter what armor I wear. So why bother.
Which funnily enough would finally match actual characters to the art style of 1st edition!
-
I don't care much about being 4 higher than the AR, but being at most 3 lower sounds rather valuable.
I so hope MilSpec will have some autohits... Which reminds me, I should make an SR6 version of the Juggernaut, with a decent bit of magic resistance as well to really make it dangerous. Even with the buffs I gave it in SR5, the players still only took 1 pass to stack up the Illusion and injury penalties so high that they managed to control its thoughts without it being able to shake that off.
(Of course it still was an AWESOME 'oh drek' moment before that happened, the moment when they finally managed to return the escaped paracritters from 1 massive transport truck, and suddenly the other truck just starts shaking as something biiiiig was trying to break out...)
-
Funnily enough the only people Id feel particularly motivated to put armor on is the high body trolls types. I’m not worried about giving the gm a edge or two across the fight. But if I can regenerate edge I over used it’s not bad. But my 4 body elf probably never will be 4 higher than the attack value no matter what armor I wear. So why bother.
Which funnily enough would finally match actual characters to the art style of 1st edition!
The cover technically just ghost who walks inside and inside maybe a few picks of gangers and the tribesmen oh and the rocker. And even then it might be a picture of when they aren’t on a run. I’d have to check the gear, I’m pretty sure the hanger just had biking leathers. Sally had a long coat on and decker a armored jacket. Sally stupidly wore it open but she had it on. But most art people wore armored clothing of some kind; jackets, a vest, the long coat was big.
So, no it wouldn’t match the art. Pretty much all the clothing was armored. And that’s what people are talking about. I don’t think anyone was talking about security or military armors. Outside a hope those might actually do something.
-
Well whatever the faults are in 6e's armor system... at least it won't have 5e's flaw where you've got multiple books' worth of options but the only clothes virtually every character wears is Sleeping Tiger.
-
I don't care much about being 4 higher than the AR, but being at most 3 lower sounds rather valuable.
I so hope MilSpec will have some autohits... Which reminds me, I should make an SR6 version of the Juggernaut, with a decent bit of magic resistance as well to really make it dangerous. Even with the buffs I gave it in SR5, the players still only took 1 pass to stack up the Illusion and injury penalties so high that they managed to control its thoughts without it being able to shake that off.
(Of course it still was an AWESOME 'oh drek' moment before that happened, the moment when they finally managed to return the escaped paracritters from 1 massive transport truck, and suddenly the other truck just starts shaking as something biiiiig was trying to break out...)
I doubt I’ll care if I am 4 or more less. I don’t think it will have much of a mechanical disadvantage. I mean sure armor is cheap so you minds as well wear it I guess.
And yes, it’s been far too many editions since the juggernaut felt like it’s description and shadowtalk. 1e i think it auto staged deadly damage down to nothing. And had a beefy body to soak any overflow. And was close to immune to magic.
-
Well whatever the faults are in 6e's armor system... at least it won't have 5e's flaw where you've got multiple books' worth of options but the only clothes virtually every character wears is Sleeping Tiger.
Yeah that was lame. Though honestly this sounds worse to me. I’d rather have a universal best armor that people can min max gravitate too than have a pointless armor system. I didn’t think they could do worse than 5es armor system. But, this sounds worse to me.
-
Well whatever the faults are in 6e's armor system... at least it won't have 5e's flaw where you've got multiple books' worth of options but the only clothes virtually every character wears is Sleeping Tiger.
Mortimer's for the Wireless bonus to all Social skills was about the only other one worth taking. Although I did have one character grab the Ares Big Game Hunter with Gel Packs for the "No, seriously, we're here to kill everyone" look.
-
And let us not forget that personal armor is not at the top of everyone's shopping list. When daddy needs a new Steel Lynx, it turns out that an Executive Suite is enough armor for a high fashion outfit.
-
Greatly reducing armors effectiveness will have its own set of consequences, and it is very likely over the course of an edition we will see the 6e equivalent of Sleeping Tiger. I mean it may turn out that tables are tpk after tpk, and they roll back this rules in a hurry. Until we see the CRB and the average player starts making characters the argument is fairly meaningless.
-
Greatly reducing armors effectiveness will have its own set of consequences, and it is very likely over the course of an edition we will see the 6e equivalent of Sleeping Tiger. I mean it may turn out that tables are tpk after tpk, and they roll back this rules in a hurry. Until we see the CRB and the average player starts making characters the argument is fairly meaningless.
Based on what we know, whatever Armor is value 3 or higher that has the "Best" other bonuses compared to the cost. Hopefully there are enough good options that "Best" becomes subjective and arguable.
-
Capacity, specific bonuses, social situations, hopefully there will be plenty of differences.
-
I'm hoping Armor Concealability comes back. Or something like it.
-
My armor clothing doesn’t help in a fight, but damn can I schmooze at a cocktail party.
I always loved 2e concealing rules. Gimmicking the long coat with concealed holsters and high conceal weapons to make the TN like 10. I want conceal to be part of a guns stats again. All x class guns are the same didn’t work for me.
-
Greatly reducing armors effectiveness will have its own set of consequences, and it is very likely over the course of an edition we will see the 6e equivalent of Sleeping Tiger. I mean it may turn out that tables are tpk after tpk, and they roll back this rules in a hurry. Until we see the CRB and the average player starts making characters the argument is fairly meaningless.
Based on what we know, whatever Armor is value 3 or higher that has the "Best" other bonuses compared to the cost. Hopefully there are enough good options that "Best" becomes subjective and arguable.
Just for the record, I didn't say "best", I said the equivalent of sleeping tiger and I meant the equivalent of sleeping tiger not "best" b/c as you said "best" is always going arguable. I still expect to see winner and losers in the armor department though.
-
Greatly reducing armors effectiveness will have its own set of consequences, and it is very likely over the course of an edition we will see the 6e equivalent of Sleeping Tiger. I mean it may turn out that tables are tpk after tpk, and they roll back this rules in a hurry. Until we see the CRB and the average player starts making characters the argument is fairly meaningless.
Based on what we know, whatever Armor is value 3 or higher that has the "Best" other bonuses compared to the cost. Hopefully there are enough good options that "Best" becomes subjective and arguable.
Just for the record, I didn't say "best", I said the equivalent of sleeping tiger and I meant the equivalent of sleeping tiger not "best" b/c as you said "best" is always going arguable. I still expect to see winner and losers in the armor department though.
Same with guns. Hopefully not as obviously as the ares alpha but there will be a clear winner/loser in each category.
-
Well whatever the faults are in 6e's armor system... at least it won't have 5e's flaw where you've got multiple books' worth of options but the only clothes virtually every character wears is Sleeping Tiger.
...my Rocker/Face in NT has ST for runs, Zoe Executive for those important meets, an Armoured Jacket for slumming it, and a Scout's Tux for those times you have to look good after a tussle.
-
i don't know the motivations for the change but i don't agree with your summation of 5e unarmed vs. melee.
unarmed has a place for high security locations that don't permit weapons AND with correct choices unarmed can be almost as deadly as armed in 5e (bone lacing, striking calluses, knucks, adept powers, etc).
So, your argument is that unarmed is effective is based on being armed with cyber and bio weapons? I would recommend the application of indirect unarmed techniques such as throws, holds, and other subdual techniques.
the reason why people use weapons irl is because THEY ARE MORE EFFECTIVE than your fists and feet. To not have that reflected in-game seems idiotic to me tbh.
It's my impression that in 6e it is possible to have characters with strength sufficiently high to exceed the weapon damage while using unarmed. If so, your argument is actually that 6e is idiotic by your standards. My understanding of what is achievable in 6e may be flawed.
While strength being less necessary (not unnecessary) for certain blades (such as a monofilament sword, but not a combat axe) makes some sense, it very much does not for most clubs.
-
I will try to address your points as best as I cam :)
Defense - yes a properly equipped decker will far outshine someone with just a commlink for matrix defense .. so without a decker (or TM) on your side you will be leaving yourself pretty vulnerable to being hacked ... that leaves how you equip yourself as being the limiter on how detrimental that is
To infer: The other tech archetype (Rigger) has to rely on Deckers or TMs for defense of his kit?
Wireless - wireless bonuses are still a thing and will probably be just as impactful if you are paranoid about being hacked ... most of the bonuses feed into the action economy (effectively making certain minor actions a "free" action by giving you a bonus minor action ... ie changing a clip with a smartgun"
Wireless bonuses were a mixed bag of good and garbage* in 5e and I am disappointed to see that they are maintained. Wired and wireless should be primarily be a flavor decision.
*Examples of garbage:
- Smartguns connect to the internet to improve real time ballistics? Nope. Weather.com isn't going to help your math.
- Stun batons charging makes them hackable? Nope. They are charging from the presence of wireless, not the exchange of data. Their wireless bonuses do not make them hackable.
- The internal router and anything. My cyberware already has a DNI per the rules and anything that a DNI shouldn't be covering, this shouldn't cover either. This is a missed opportunity to macro multiple cyberware actions.
The survival knife is a good example of wireless bonuses that make sense.
Usage - this is more of a misconception I think... you can (and could in 5E) still access a device in your possession without connecting to the matrix just like in today's world your typical smartphone has a limited amount of functionality even with no signal but connecting to the matrix increases that functionality exponentially. There are no specific rules that state how useful something is without a matrix connection one way or another and should be handled with common sense.
A better example is a smartphone and a laptop. I can share my internet connection with my laptop via USB or WiFi hotspot.
In SR, if I connect via USB, it's not wireless so I don't get bonuses for being online. I can't get my Windows Updates. I can't stream my movies from Netflix or Prime.
If I connect via Mobile Hotspot. Suddenly, I am "SR" online and can be hacked from a block away.
If I'm connected via a LAN to a T1 line, it's the same "not wireless" nonsense.
It's dumb. Anything that requires a connection to a remote server should work whether there are a wires involved or not.
How MAD are deckers - well that will ultimately come down to play style but for 95% of what a decker is intended to do you only need 2 attributes and 2 skills
How about a tangent from a point above?
How MAD are riggers - Is it an equivalent investment to decker(s)?
How easy is it to fill multiple roles? - In general, but also specifically, how easily is it for a character to be a decker and rigger out of the gate versus how easy is it for a character to be a Technomancer and a rigger out of the gate?
-
Wireless bonuses were a mixed bag of good and garbage* in 5e and I am disappointed to see that they are maintained. Wired and wireless should be primarily be a flavor decision.
I disagree with the bolded portion.
So long as the game wants deckers to join the team and not just hang back in the van, there must be things to hack. If people can just render themselves hack-proof by going wireless-off, one thing you can do to prevent that is give them meaningful incentives to remain wireless-on. (I would have preferred to see wireless-off simply not being a rules-mechanic option, since you can't go "astral-off" and render yourself immune to magic, so why can you render yourself immune to matrix attack? but I digress...)
Whether the wireless bonuses are sufficiently compelling to not make yourself hacker-proof is a worthy discussion... but it's certainly not merely a flavor decision to make yourself hack-proof or to choose to use the potential wireless bonus.
*Examples of garbage:
- Smartguns connect to the internet to improve real time ballistics? Nope. Weather.com isn't going to help your math.
- Stun batons charging makes them hackable? Nope. They are charging from the presence of wireless, not the exchange of data. Their wireless bonuses do not make them hackable.
- The internal router and anything. My cyberware already has a DNI per the rules and anything that a DNI shouldn't be covering, this shouldn't cover either. This is a missed opportunity to macro multiple cyberware actions.
The survival knife is a good example of wireless bonuses that make sense.
I think that 6e has done a better job making the wireless bonuses more compelling. Some instances are comparable to 5e, but IMO by and large there are many bonuses that are too good to give up as a matter of routine protocol just to be hacker-proof.
-
And before anyone asks what exactly those options are, please remember NDAs still apply and people are very limited in what they can clarify right now.
Me, I just take Simsense Vertigo if it still exists. =)
-
So long as the game wants deckers to join the team and not just hang back in the van, there must be things to hack. If people can just render themselves hack-proof by going wireless-off, one thing you can do to prevent that is give them meaningful incentives to remain wireless-on.
That doesn't mean everyone needs incentive to go wireless. In fact, it would make a great deal more sense if it were the wageslaves and other normies who benefited most from running wireless (being able to tell their fridge to start making dinner while they're driving home from work, for instance) while shadowrunners and anyone they would consider serious opposition would be able to use their gear to the fullest capacity without having wireless enabled.
(I would have preferred to see wireless-off simply not being a rules-mechanic option, since you can't go "astral-off" and render yourself immune to magic, so why can you render yourself immune to matrix attack? but I digress...)
Magic/matrix symmetry is neither necessary nor beneficial for the system; in fact I would even go as far to say it's detrimental.
-
So long as the game wants deckers to join the team and not just hang back in the van, there must be things to hack. If people can just render themselves hack-proof by going wireless-off, one thing you can do to prevent that is give them meaningful incentives to remain wireless-on.
That doesn't mean everyone needs incentive to go wireless. In fact, it would make a great deal more sense if it were the wageslaves and other normies who benefited most from running wireless (being able to tell their fridge to start making dinner while they're driving home from work, for instance) while shadowrunners and anyone they would consider serious opposition would be able to use their gear to the fullest capacity without having wireless enabled.
But that harks back to the reason stuff is wireless in the first place: so that they can be hacked. Take away the decker's job, and you don't have anything for the decker to do. Except go back to 1-3e norms and the decker hacks the host while everyone else does nothing, then while everyone else plays the decker does nothing.
(I would have preferred to see wireless-off simply not being a rules-mechanic option, since you can't go "astral-off" and render yourself immune to magic, so why can you render yourself immune to matrix attack? but I digress...)
Magic/matrix symmetry is neither necessary nor beneficial for the system; in fact I would even go as far to say it's detrimental.
Let's agree to disagree. On all three things you just said.
-
But that harks back to the reason stuff is wireless in the first place: so that they can be hacked.
Wrong way of thinking. Nobody puts wireless functionality on a device so that it can be hacked. The world is not built for you to exploit. You are able to exploit the world because it is complicated and flawed. Inability to understand that distinction is what makes for garbage wireless bonuses.
Except go back to 1-3e norms and the decker hacks the host while everyone else does nothing
In my experience, that happens anyways.
-
And before anyone asks what exactly those options are, please remember NDAs still apply and people are very limited in what they can clarify right now.
Me, I just take Simsense Vertigo if it still exists. =)
I think it should be a required flaw worth 0 points for mages.
-
So long as the game wants deckers to join the team and not just hang back in the van, there must be things to hack. If people can just render themselves hack-proof by going wireless-off, one thing you can do to prevent that is give them meaningful incentives to remain wireless-on.
That doesn't mean everyone needs incentive to go wireless. In fact, it would make a great deal more sense if it were the wageslaves and other normies who benefited most from running wireless (being able to tell their fridge to start making dinner while they're driving home from work, for instance) while shadowrunners and anyone they would consider serious opposition would be able to use their gear to the fullest capacity without having wireless enabled.
But that harks back to the reason stuff is wireless in the first place: so that they can be hacked. Take away the decker's job, and you don't have anything for the decker to do. Except go back to 1-3e norms and the decker hacks the host while everyone else does nothing, then while everyone else plays the decker does nothing.
Let's agree to disagree. On all three things you just said.
...In earlier editions, Deckers used to hack hosts so they could spoof cameras, spoof door locks, spoof security systems, and perform matrix overwatch for the team while they were in an installation. That was a very important function in and of itself.
-
Wireless bonuses were a mixed bag of good and garbage* in 5e and I am disappointed to see that they are maintained. Wired and wireless should be primarily be a flavor decision.
I disagree with the bolded portion.
So long as the game wants deckers to join the team and not just hang back in the van, there must be things to hack. If people can just render themselves hack-proof by going wireless-off, one thing you can do to prevent that is give them meaningful incentives to remain wireless-on. (I would have preferred to see wireless-off simply not being a rules-mechanic option, since you can't go "astral-off" and render yourself immune to magic, so why can you render yourself immune to matrix attack? but I digress...)
Whether the wireless bonuses are sufficiently compelling to not make yourself hacker-proof is a worthy discussion... but it's certainly not merely a flavor decision to make yourself hack-proof or to choose to use the potential wireless bonus.
That's a bit of an either-or fallacy. Everything should generally be hackable, though signal rating makes more sense as a barrier to hacking for many accessories than anything else. You're not going to hack my Bluetooth from down the block. However, you can hack into a lot of things through the commlink.
What does this look like? The security amateur probably has a lot of default settings turned on, including matrix connectivity, and may be delinquent with their updates. You may be able to exploit individual pieces of gear directly.
The Kusanagis have the important gear behind low signal strength wireless connections to their commlinks or cyberdecks. You can still get through, but you'll have to get through the commlink. Instead, you can choose to jam the gear connection, but you will probably be facing some solid ECCM.
The Togusas will insist on wired connections to their critical pieces and a foe's options will be similar to facing Kusanagi, but with fewer targets to shut down via ECM jamming.
There may be some SR vulnerabilities that don't exist yet, such as the potential to set up digital camouflage via AR tags, that don't depend on your connections (In this case, only whether you have an AR capable camera/cybereye).
I think that 6e has done a better job making the wireless bonuses more compelling. Some instances are comparable to 5e, but IMO by and large there are many bonuses that are too good to give up as a matter of routine protocol just to be hacker-proof.
It's not about compelling, it's about sensical and about not being a stick like it was in 5e, which I am worried about from your statement.
-
But that harks back to the reason stuff is wireless in the first place: so that they can be hacked. Take away the decker's job, and you don't have anything for the decker to do. Except go back to 1-3e norms and the decker hacks the host while everyone else does nothing, then while everyone else plays the decker does nothing.
Curiously, you omitted 4e which did not have wireless bonuses. Can I then infer that 4e solved the problem of the decker in the van without resorting wireless bonuses that either never get used or get houseruled into not needing wireless functionality?
-
But that harks back to the reason stuff is wireless in the first place: so that they can be hacked. Take away the decker's job, and you don't have anything for the decker to do. Except go back to 1-3e norms and the decker hacks the host while everyone else does nothing, then while everyone else plays the decker does nothing.
Curiously, you omitted 4e which did not have wireless bonuses. Can I then infer that 4e solved the problem of the decker in the van without resorting wireless bonuses that either never get used or get houseruled into not needing wireless functionality?
Actually, all you can infer from my lack of mentioning 4e is that I didn't play that edition and so am not intimately familiar with its idiosyncrasies ;)
-
My major concern is that it all turns into an Edge mini game, which seems really dumb. Like, armor is apparently irrelevant now as it only applies for the purpose of calculating who wins the advantage. That’s a terrible idea. I just hope it works better than it sounds. Probably staying with 5e
-
Mixing Edge with Armor is a terrible idea, at least from the bits of information we have so far. The only positive thing I can see about this right now is that I really disliked how overly important armor was in SR5, with inflated soak pools and the broken calculation for hardened armor. But this is totally overdoing it, and it´s also quite unintuitive: Armor protects against damage. Plain and simple. You can make it about being harder to score a hit like in D&D, it could be a flat damage reduction, it could be additional soak dice like in the previous SR editions - but all of this has an effect that´s understandable by everyone. Gaining magical breakdance points for getting shot at while having armor, not so much.
Well, at least it´s probably not too hard to houserule the armor/edge interaction into something more reasonable. That´s one benefit of steamlined systems: It´s easier to make adjustments without the whole system/balance crumbling down. Try the same with that godforsaken Limit mechanic in SR5 :P Maybe there will even be some official backpedaling optional combat rules later on in the combat supplement, like the ones in Run&Gun.
-
But that harks back to the reason stuff is wireless in the first place: so that they can be hacked. Take away the decker's job, and you don't have anything for the decker to do. Except go back to 1-3e norms and the decker hacks the host while everyone else does nothing, then while everyone else plays the decker does nothing.
Curiously, you omitted 4e which did not have wireless bonuses. Can I then infer that 4e solved the problem of the decker in the van without resorting wireless bonuses that either never get used or get houseruled into not needing wireless functionality?
Actually, all you can infer from my lack of mentioning 4e is that I didn't play that edition and so am not intimately familiar with its idiosyncrasies ;)
What fun is that? This. Is. The. Internet. :D
-
My major concern is that it all turns into an Edge mini game, which seems really dumb. Like, armor is apparently irrelevant now as it only applies for the purpose of calculating who wins the advantage. That’s a terrible idea. I just hope it works better than it sounds. Probably staying with 5e
Now with the development Q&A out, it seems like the Armor/Edge-interaction actually came first and then the Edge mechanic was expanded to a more general use.
I suspected it was the other way around: Someone came up with the (honestly, not too bad) idea to make combat modifiers into edge and then someone stood up and said "Hey, wait! Why not make Armor also about Edge, instead of, you know, protecting against damage? Wouldn´t that be absoutely nuts?!? ;D"
-
So, after viewing the live play videos and listening to a few podcasts; it appears that armor does add to your defense rating if you are 4 or more higher than the opposing attack rating you get the edge. The armor does help defend against damage as it improves your defense rating. The removal of armor soak increases the chances that your average 'runner will seek cover to boost his Defense Rating and get that edge point. Having seen it in action it appears to speed play up and reduce modifier confusion.
-
Yes, it effects your defense value and your ability to either gain or give a point of edge. Whether one edge is worth anything or if it does close to enough to represent armor is the question. Faster isn’t always better. I’m not sure how much modifier confusion there was with armor. Though I guess non conductive etc added a layer of complexity. I like fast gameplay but how much immersive feel of shadowrun am I willing to give up to gain it. A simple system of clothing armor has values of 1-3, security 2-4, military 3-5.(levels representing in each category coverage form vest to full suit)Each level gives one auto success on damage resistance would be just as quick and allow armor to feel like armor.
Nostalgia maybe but I think the game had some pluses from staging damage. 4 net hits brought a pistol up to deadly damage. 1 net hit kept it at moderate. Now it takes 7 net hits to get there. That’s a lot of hits to kill someone with a gun. This overly pushes people to big gun options imo so their base damage is capable of killing with a non ludicrous number of hits. Problem is without staging backed by a combat pool or armor high base damages are almost impossible to reduce from crazy levels. As if once you use a assault rifle on autofire there are no grazing hits or flesh wounds.
-
Not seeing why people think armor was so good in SR5? SR5 is all about not being hit in the first place, which is a 1:1 against attack, rather than DV vs. Armor, because you need 3 armor to cover 1 DV. Attacks have much higher DV in SR5 than in SR4, too. Unless you're walking around in heavy armor (which should have its own complications), you're likely to take damage from nearly anything that hits.
SR6 looks to make avoiding damage even more important than it is in SR5.
-
Let's see... Barrett 122: 14P/-10 with apds. Vs 10 + FBA 18. 18 dice for 10 soak with edge, so 5+ taken even with Edge. Without Edge it is 9+ taken. In SR6 you would have 3.33 hits so even if all the buffs bring you to 11P base damage it would be same average damage. So I think lethality might not even be that bad against the heavy stuff. It's mass attacks that are more dangerous against heavy armor.
-
Not seeing why people think armor was so good in SR5?
Primary on characters designed for extreme armor. One of my Missions players has a Minotaur with just short of 70 dice in his milspec, low 60's in legal less conspicuous sleeping tiger.
-
Not seeing why people think armor was so good in SR5? SR5 is all about not being hit in the first place, which is a 1:1 against attack, rather than DV vs. Armor, because you need 3 armor to cover 1 DV. Attacks have much higher DV in SR5 than in SR4, too. Unless you're walking around in heavy armor (which should have its own complications), you're likely to take damage from nearly anything that hits.
SR6 looks to make avoiding damage even more important than it is in SR5.
I’ve argued that the math made it too deadly there as well and that it seems to get worse in 6e. But while you wanted to avoid getting shot in the first place armor for non extreme examples brought damage down by 4ish dv which is almost 1/2 your health which is pretty significant. Either way base damages being too high skew away the option of a flesh wound unless you have a stupid high soak pool. I think the system should be designed under the assumption basic hits with limited successes should be soaked down to flesh wounds for most small arms. Large obvious weapons, troll powered melee it’s different.
-
In SR5, Armor was too important, especially worn armor. The difference between running unarmored and running with the standard optimized combination of Sleeping Tiger, Ballistic Masks, Nutsack Protectors and whatnot was extreme. Considering a standard human with 3 Body and an armored Jacket (12): That´s 80% of the Soak roll determined by Armor. Worn Armor, to be precise. If that Human had, let´s say, Dermal Plating with a Rating of 1, that would still only add one die, which is more or less neglegible in comparison. And this is the ratio for a pretty standard, underoptimized build, without the really broken stuff like Cyberlimb Armor or Hardened Armor.
Making (worn) Armor less impactfull could be a step in the right direction.
However: Making Armor do absolutely nothing to protect against damage and instead make it about Edge just doesn´t seem like the right way to do it. Like, at all. How about just - wild idea, I know! - changing the balance by adjusting the damage values and the values of worn armor? Or just make armor act as a straight damage reduction? :o
-
yeah armor/soak was broken in 5e. This is a massive over correction. Where it feels like armor now does effectively nothing.
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
As far as 6th world goes, do remember to view "armor not helping on a soak roll" in context. Some other 6e changes that tie directly into this change:
1) weapons have a lower DV, so there's less TO soak.
2) healing is more readily available than in 5e, so any damage you do take isn't as impactful as it is in 5e.
3) armor contributing to DR isn't the same thing as doing nothing. Edge is now an all-important meta-currency. Armor giving you Edge (or denying it to your attacker) IS a big deal.
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
Tanks have never been statted for 5e. The worst that you can say is that you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal APC.
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
Tanks have never been statted for 5e. The worst that you can say is that you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal APC.
For colloquial purposes, an APC is still a tank.
Shadowrun isn't a military simulation game. The BattleTech forum is over here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php) :D
-
To take damage one still needs to be hit. My Chicago Missions Magician was not hit often because she was rarely perceived.
If the new Edge process negates or reduces Sneaking, Concealment, Masking, et.al., the game won't be worth playing IMO, and I'll find another game.
-
From Jason Hardy, Shadowrun Line Developer:
...
Whether you’re fighting, spellcasting, hacking, or negotiating, you’ll have a chance to earn and spend bonus Edge.
...
You'll still get the opportunity to gain edge even outside of combat.
If you've seen the SCN live play demo: they haven't done an amazing job of illustrating how one can gain edge outside of combat, but even that being the case last night they made excellent use of sneaky magic to churn up a bounty of Edge.
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
As far as 6th world goes, do remember to view "armor not helping on a soak roll" in context. Some other 6e changes that tie directly into this change:
1) weapons have a lower DV, so there's less TO soak.
2) healing is more readily available than in 5e, so any damage you do take isn't as impactful as it is in 5e.
3) armor contributing to DR isn't the same thing as doing nothing. Edge is now an all-important meta-currency. Armor giving you Edge (or denying it to your attacker) IS a big deal.
Plus, it was already mentioned that Augmentations (and other Perks) that actually add to the Soak test or even flat out reduce the damage will still be a thing. That also means that these Perks will have a much bigger value now, unlike 5E. I also wonder if Armor will still be able to turn lethal Damage into stun Damage. If so, it will still play an important role besides Edge gain. Same for the additional properties of Drone/Vehicle Armor.
I do have to admit, I´m still a bit on the fence about the Armor/Edge-thing. It´s a bold move, and I fear that it will be to much of an overcorrection. But maybe it actually works out in the end. If not, here´s to hope that there will be some additional/optional rules in the Combat Sourcebook once the TPK reports start to pile up. R&G offered some alternative combat rules as well (pretty half-assed, though).
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
As far as 6th world goes, do remember to view "armor not helping on a soak roll" in context. Some other 6e changes that tie directly into this change:
1) weapons have a lower DV, so there's less TO soak.
2) healing is more readily available than in 5e, so any damage you do take isn't as impactful as it is in 5e.
3) armor contributing to DR isn't the same thing as doing nothing. Edge is now an all-important meta-currency. Armor giving you Edge (or denying it to your attacker) IS a big deal.
Yes 5e armor was wack. Making 6e just as wack but in the other direction isn’t a fix. It’s just exchanging different broken items. Hell 5e was less broken as you had to actively build to break it. You have to actively build out of broken here.
-
Yes 5e armor was wack. Making 6e just as wack but in the other direction isn’t a fix. It’s just exchanging different broken items. Hell 5e was less broken as you had to actively build to break it. You have to actively build out of broken here.
Yes, obviously, an overcorrection is bad.
However I don't know that declaring 6e is overcorrecting is actually a fair assessment, though.
In 5e, you usually just take a little stun or no damage at all, until there's a hit so insanely severe you can't possibly soak it and you die. Not a lot of middle ground.
In 6e, since you're soaking with a smaller pool, you'll get less hits sure. But you're soaking less damage. Will you probably soak it all? Usually, no. So.. you end up with some minor wounding. Already, that's a difference from 5e and in my own completely personal opinion, that's a change for the better. But whether one agrees with me or not, again remember healing is more readily accessible in 6e (never mind the SCN actual play... They COULD have healed, they just didn't bother having all the tools necessary to do so!) So in 5e, you go through a fight and either end up not wounded at all (imo, boring), slightly stunned (yay, slap patches, and back to not being wounded at all!), or dead (no fun for anyone). In 6e, so long as you didn't TPK you patch up, only MAYBE still suffer any wound penalties, and you press on. More soaking just makes it more like 5e.
Again, all imo.
-
Yes 5e armor was wack. Making 6e just as wack but in the other direction isn’t a fix. It’s just exchanging different broken items. Hell 5e was less broken as you had to actively build to break it. You have to actively build out of broken here.
Yes, obviously, an overcorrection is bad.
However I don't know that declaring 6e is overcorrecting is actually a fair assessment, though.
In 5e, you usually just take a little stun or no damage at all, until there's a hit so insanely severe you can't possibly soak it and you die. Not a lot of middle ground.
In 6e, since you're soaking with a smaller pool, you'll get less hits sure. But you're soaking less damage. Will you probably soak it all? Usually, no. So.. you end up with some minor wounding. Already, that's a difference from 5e and in my own completely personal opinion, that's a change for the better. But whether one agrees with me or not, again remember healing is more readily accessible in 6e (never mind the SCN actual play... They COULD have healed, they just didn't bother having all the tools necessary to do so!) So in 5e, you go through a fight and either end up not wounded at all (imo, boring), slightly stunned (yay, slap patches, and back to not being wounded at all!), or dead (no fun for anyone). In 6e, so long as you didn't TPK you patch up, only MAYBE still suffer any wound penalties, and you press on. More soaking just makes it more like 5e.
Again, all imo.
There is no way to know yet. The action economy suggests players will get attacked more. But until we see the first couple books it’s impossible make a convincing argument. Does it look like over reaction? Sure. Any time you see things go from 20 dice to probably 5 or less asking question is 100% valid. But we are stuck until the CRB drops.
-
I pretty much concur with Marcus. Until we get to see what's what, it's a lot of speculation.
I can say that I don't really care for the more healing thing. Not that it is a good or bad choice, it's just a personal flavor issue for me. Barring the heal speal (which I was never a big fan of), I liked Shadowrun's more realistic "I need to sleep this off for a few days." or "I think I need a doctor. . ." gritty vibe. I just hope it doesn't end up being a high fantasy, dnd sort of situation.
-
I pretty much concur with Marcus. Until we get to see what's what, it's a lot of speculation.
I can say that I don't really care for the more healing thing. Not that it is a good or bad choice, it's just a personal flavor issue for me. Barring the heal speal (which I was never a big fan of), I liked Shadowrun's more realistic "I need to sleep this off for a few days." or "I think I need a doctor. . ." gritty vibe. I just hope it doesn't end up being a high fantasy, dnd sort of situation.
It already felt like that in many games I ran. A first aid character and a heal spell frequently brought characters from like 9 boxes of damage to fully healed. If 6e goes further, damn healing is powerful.
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
As far as 6th world goes, do remember to view "armor not helping on a soak roll" in context. Some other 6e changes that tie directly into this change:
1) weapons have a lower DV, so there's less TO soak.
2) healing is more readily available than in 5e, so any damage you do take isn't as impactful as it is in 5e.
3) armor contributing to DR isn't the same thing as doing nothing. Edge is now an all-important meta-currency. Armor giving you Edge (or denying it to your attacker) IS a big deal.
Plus, it was already mentioned that Augmentations (and other Perks) that actually add to the Soak test or even flat out reduce the damage will still be a thing. That also means that these Perks will have a much bigger value now, unlike 5E.
..but woe to the mage, adept or techromancer who cannot get such mods without sacrificing their primary abilities.
-
To take damage one still needs to be hit. My Chicago Missions Magician was not hit often because she was rarely perceived.
If the new Edge process negates or reduces Sneaking, Concealment, Masking, et.al., the game won't be worth playing IMO, and I'll find another game.
...+1
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
Tanks have never been statted for 5e. The worst that you can say is that you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal APC.
For colloquial purposes, an APC is still a tank.
Shadowrun isn't a military simulation game. The BattleTech forum is over here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php) :D
...however. in 3E they statted out APCs Tanks, Naval Weapons, and such.
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
As far as 6th world goes, do remember to view "armor not helping on a soak roll" in context. Some other 6e changes that tie directly into this change:
1) weapons have a lower DV, so there's less TO soak.
2) healing is more readily available than in 5e, so any damage you do take isn't as impactful as it is in 5e.
3) armor contributing to DR isn't the same thing as doing nothing. Edge is now an all-important meta-currency. Armor giving you Edge (or denying it to your attacker) IS a big deal.
...from what I have seen in the live play sessions, the lack of armour adding into soak does make a big difference. In session #2 the entire team was almost taken out by devil rats. I have never seen a team of runners decimated by devil rats in any edition.
-
When you can build a figurative tank with a better soak pool than a literal tank, you know 5e was wack.
As far as 6th world goes, do remember to view "armor not helping on a soak roll" in context. Some other 6e changes that tie directly into this change:
1) weapons have a lower DV, so there's less TO soak.
2) healing is more readily available than in 5e, so any damage you do take isn't as impactful as it is in 5e.
3) armor contributing to DR isn't the same thing as doing nothing. Edge is now an all-important meta-currency. Armor giving you Edge (or denying it to your attacker) IS a big deal.
...from what I have seen in the live play sessions, the lack of armour adding into soak does make a big difference. In session #2 the entire team was almost taken out by devil rats. I have never seen a team of runners decimated by devil rats in any edition.
And you still haven't in 6th, either.
It wasn't Devil Rats that messed them up, but Demon Rats who were leading the Devil Rats. More specifically: Poison from the Demon Rats. Armor doesn't help vs poison in 5e, either.
-
It wasn't Devil Rats that messed them up, but Demon Rats who were leading the Devil Rats. More specifically: Poison from the Demon Rats. Armor doesn't help vs poison in 5e, either.
One, it does, actually. Regular armor can protect against injection vector toxins by preventing penetration, and various armor mods provide varying degrees of protection against contact and inhalation vector toxins.
Two, there's plenty of gear and augmentations that provide soak dice against toxins, so I could very easily move the goalposts from "armor is meaningless because it doesn't provide soak dice" to "protective gear and augments are meaningless because they don't provide soak dice".
Three, I'm looking at the statblock for Demon Rats right now and I see nothing about a toxin attack. Where did the toxins come from in this scenario?
-
It wasn't Devil Rats that messed them up, but Demon Rats who were leading the Devil Rats. More specifically: Poison from the Demon Rats. Armor doesn't help vs poison in 5e, either.
One, it does, actually. Regular armor can protect against injection vector toxins by preventing penetration, and various armor mods provide varying degrees of protection against contact and inhalation vector toxins.
Not getting hit in the first place is the primary defense in 6e. Yes, there's a paradigm shift: in 5e you can fairly expect to shrug off attacks entirely. In 6e you can't fairly expect that. It's an inherent change to the metagame that in 6e if you get shot, you probably WILL get hurt somewhat.
Two, there's plenty of gear and augmentations that provide soak dice against toxins, so I could very easily move the goalposts from "armor is meaningless because it doesn't provide soak dice" to "protective gear and augments are meaningless because they don't provide soak dice".
But you don't know that there's NO way to augment soak rolls. You only know that armor doesn't augment soak rolls.
Three, I'm looking at the statblock for Demon Rats right now and I see nothing about a toxin attack. Where did the toxins come from in this scenario?
5e Demon Rats aren't identical to 6e Demon Rats.
If you're not directly familiar with why the toxin messed the SCN actual play party up, let me recap: toxin damage isn't "one and done" in 6e. You keep taking the damage over and over. Until you don't. The "damage over time" effect without a good way to stop it is what wrecked them. If memory serves, they only took like 2 boxes of damage from rat bites.
-
It wasn't Devil Rats that messed them up, but Demon Rats who were leading the Devil Rats. More specifically: Poison from the Demon Rats. Armor doesn't help vs poison in 5e, either.
One, it does, actually. Regular armor can protect against injection vector toxins by preventing penetration, and various armor mods provide varying degrees of protection against contact and inhalation vector toxins.
Two, there's plenty of gear and augmentations that provide soak dice against toxins, so I could very easily move the goalposts from "armor is meaningless because it doesn't provide soak dice" to "protective gear and augments are meaningless because they don't provide soak dice".
Three, I'm looking at the statblock for Demon Rats right now and I see nothing about a toxin attack. Where did the toxins come from in this scenario?
Ouch lol.
-
Not getting hit in the first place is the primary defense in 6e. Yes, there's a paradigm shift: in 5e you can fairly expect to shrug off attacks entirely. In 6e you can't fairly expect that. It's an inherent change to the metagame that in 6e if you get shot, you probably WILL get hurt somewhat.
You were still wrong about armor protecting against toxins. Besides that, not getting hit in the first place is the primary defense in every edition of Shadowrun. It's just that getting hit is inevitable for all but the most Black Trenchcoat of players, so you need your armor to provide soak dice for when you do get hit.
But you don't know that there's NO way to augment soak rolls. You only know that armor doesn't augment soak rolls.
Pattern recognition says either there won't be any way to get more soak dice, or they'll be very costly to obtain. What's more, soak dice against toxins and specific element types are going to be even more expensive, if they're even a thing. Specialized protection is more difficult to obtain than normal protection; if soak dice against bullets and knives are no longer a dime a dozen, then what kind of price can we expect to pay for soak dice against toxins, or against specific elemental damage?
If you're not directly familiar with why the toxin messed the SCN actual play party up, let me recap: toxin damage isn't "one and done" in 6e. You keep taking the damage over and over. Until you don't. The "damage over time" effect without a good way to stop it is what wrecked them. If memory serves, they only took like 2 boxes of damage from rat bites.
So getting hit with an injection vector toxin is worse than it was before, and now there's no way to protect yourself from an injection vector toxin except "just don't get hit lol". Well, now it makes sense that Strength no longer contributes to melee damage, because no one is going to use a melee weapon other than syringes full of Narcoject ever again.
-
If you're not directly familiar with why the toxin messed the SCN actual play party up, let me recap: toin damage isn't "one and done" in 6e. You keep taking the damage over and over. Until you don't. The "damage over time" effect without a good way to stop it is what wrecked them. If memory serves, they only took like 2 boxes of damage from rat bites.
So in addition to not being able to soak much as all, Toxins have become way stronger, without the ability to negate the effect easily? Good to know. lol
-
That just blows me away DoT effects in a game with So few boxes in the CM, and seriously reduced action economy. Did they change the how CM is calculated or anything?
-
While not getting hit has always been the primary defense I’m not sure mechanically we will need armor to soak. As in the math could be correctly scaled to work without it. That being said, armor likely won’t feel like armor. This is similar to the strength/melee issue. The math might be fine to make the sword be balanced and viable or whatever. It just makes no effing sense so that logical dissonance damages the feel of the game.
It feels like all their eggs are in the edge basket. Trust us edge makes armor work, it makes melee/str work.
-
It feels like all their eggs are in the edge basket. Trust us edge makes armor work, it makes melee/str work.
I think you're on to something there.
-
...from what I have seen in the live play sessions, the lack of armour adding into soak does make a big difference. In session #2 the entire team was almost taken out by devil rats. I have never seen a team of runners decimated by devil rats in any edition.
Devil rats are quite lethal when employed properly. If you set 'em up like a D&D giant rat fight, phish, splat, splat, splat. But when they're in the walls, guiding swarms of rats, astral ripping your magic support to hell and gone... yeah, then they're scary.
-
...scary for low level characters in D&D.
I didn't catch all of the second session.
So do the same rules for multiple grunts attacking together apply for multiple critters? If so that really pushes the threat level up should a team encounter something like a pack of Hellhounds or several Barghasts. I don't mind a challenge, but the more I have seen of how the rules work, the more I am beginning to feel the system has become severely weighted against the PCs. Not quite as bad as Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu, but still.
Only Body counts for soak, ties go to the attacker now instead of the defender, No protection against injection vector toxins (except not getting hit), melee weapons seem worthless compared to unarmed fighting, and enemies effectively have the "swarm" action. I'm basically surprised none of the characters in the live play test haven't ended up KIA yet (the team's Decker almost did this past week and the Weapon Specialist/Sammy sounded like he was barely hanging together by a thread or two).
-
It feels like all their eggs are in the edge basket. Trust us edge makes armor work, it makes melee/str work.
I think you're on to something there.
When is 7e coming out?
Can I just skip the armor just adds to AC -- sorry, defense rating-- edition?
Seriously, with the armor revamp and sustained spells becomes set durations, this is going to be SR's D&D 4e.
-
Seriously, with the armor revamp and sustained spells becomes set durations, this is going to be SR's D&D 4e.
The misinformation to the public is pretty strong. Like you have these folks with the quick start rules or box set or whatever playing live streams that say one thing, then you have these (authors I presume? i.e Banshee) saying something else. The drain example.
I think we all appreciate intel on the changes in the new edition but can we at least get it right before we call it out?
yes I wrote parts of the book and was on the rules development team from the beginning as well and obviously have a copy of the "final" print copy in my possession. However I have not seen the QSR and would agree there seems to be some sizable differences between it and the CRB on a few things. Spellcasting seems to be the biggest one since we did not change drain or sustained spells either one but it sounds like the QSR says otherwise.
-
yes I wrote parts of the book and was on the rules development team from the beginning as well and obviously have a copy of the "final" print copy in my possession. However I have not seen the QSR and would agree there seems to be some sizable differences between it and the CRB on a few things. Spellcasting seems to be the biggest one since we did not change drain or sustained spells either one but it sounds like the QSR says otherwise.
I forgot that post. Thank you.
I am still concerned.
Puts on tinfoil hat. Hides under Gurth's stairs.
-
So I've been watching the Shadowcasters play-thru of shadowrun sixth world and I have to say I am not impressed with the game so far.
Some of my issues include:
1. The lack of armor as damage reduction seem to make even the simplest encounter deadly.
Add to this that the only real successes the team has had is when using things like invisibility to take the other-side by surprise.
2. Healing using edge as a base is going to make the lack of armor as a DR even worse, since most a parties heavy hitters and front-line combatants are going to quickly be put out of action if all they can count on is their body for soak. As in previous edition depended on their armor to get them through.
I see most groups have ridiculous amounts of downtime after most missions.
3. The edge system in general seems to have been setup as this "super the game depends on it mechanic" and I don't see it living up to this faith the designers have put in it.
a. It seem to be very hard to get more edge outside of direct combat (ex.The mages inability to generate much edge).
b. If there is some advantages that are taking the place of armors DR I'm not seeing them.
c. From what I can see edge gain is not as fast as they have seemed to imply.
d. It seems like they are going with an " Edge can be substantiated for any mechanic" design, and I don't see this system as able to effectively replace most game mechanic
they think it will.
4. And don get me started on the "Wild Die"
a. As a GM I have seen what most of my players rolls are and on average the majority of hits are 5s.
b. So for the off chance of getting a few more hits they are going to run the risk of losing most of their hits in a roll.
I think "Jinn" summed it up well when he said "If I had know the mechanic before I rolled it I never would have used it".
So it is a mechanic that knowing my players and assuing that most players feel the same, is never going to get much if any use as players are going to avoid it like the plague.
All-in-all, I have to say so far I'm nowhere near impressed with the system and will most likely stay with 5th at this point.
-
Why are they using edge to heal, instead of normal healing methods such as first aid and the heal spell? How come their defense pools are so bad that they get hit all the time? How come they don't aim for getting a significant amount of edge per combat round? Where's their armor, diving for cover, forcing negative circumstances onto their enemies through smoke grenades and such?
-
Why are they using edge to heal, instead of normal healing methods such as first aid and the heal spell? How come their defense pools are so bad that they get hit all the time? How come they don't aim for getting a significant amount of edge per combat round? Where's their armor, diving for cover, forcing negative circumstances onto their enemies through smoke grenades and such?
For most of that, because that’s how the game works. A crap defense pool is normal. There are 8 stats you have to spread points among. You don’t get that many points. So yeah 5-8 dice is pretty damn normal. With dodge etc maybe you bump to 10-12. It’s not top line opposition needed to hit that as skills are easier to start at 6. Don’t most negative circumstances only get you a edge, are you willing to use your one major for that.
Edge for heal I have no idea on I have not see the rules. But hit often. 4 agility+6 firearms=10 dice. To equal that without active dodges you need 5 in both intuition and reaction. That’s 8 of your maybe 16 points for 2 of your 8 stats.
-
So I've been watching the Shadowcasters play-thru of shadowrun sixth world and I have to say I am not impressed with the game so far.
Opinions are never wrong, but I do feel like offering some of my own counter opinions and why I have them.
Some of my issues include:
1. The lack of armor as damage reduction seem to make even the simplest encounter deadly.
Add to this that the only real successes the team has had is when using things like invisibility to take the other-side by surprise.
Yes, it's an inherent change in paradigm from 5e. As such, there are some who'll never like it. You may well never prefer the change. OTOH, I'm optimistic about the new idea. Here's why: Optimized shadowrunners in 5e may as well have the "Immunity to Pistols and SMGs" critter power. Soak pools are too ridiculous for things like Fichetti 600s and HK-227s to ever deal any damage. If the NPCs are to actually challenge runners, they need Assault Rifles and APDS ammo. Likewise, if the GM builds NPCs the way players build PCs, then runners won't be able to go into combat with anything less than that, either.
Taken as part of a whole (particularly where healing is less restricted) being hurt more often isn't necessarily a bad thing for game balance. Speaking of healing...
2. Healing using edge as a base is going to make the lack of armor as a DR even worse, since most a parties heavy hitters and front-line combatants are going to quickly be put out of action if all they can count on is their body for soak. As in previous edition depended on their armor to get them through.
I see most groups have ridiculous amounts of downtime after most missions.
Armor not contributing to a soak pool is NOT the same thing as being forced to depend on nothing but Body to soak. Just sayin'. Even in the SCN AP they were talking about some augmentations that are "don't leave home without them" if you're playing a runner who's going to be getting shot at.
3. The edge system in general seems to have been setup as this "super the game depends on it mechanic" and I don't see it living up to this faith the designers have put in it.
a. It seem to be very hard to get more edge outside of direct combat (ex.The mages inability to generate much edge).
b. If there is some advantages that are taking the place of armors DR I'm not seeing them.
c. From what I can see edge gain is not as fast as they have seemed to imply.
d. It seems like they are going with an " Edge can be substantiated for any mechanic" design, and I don't see this system as able to effectively replace most game mechanic
they think it will.
I will grant that the SCN group hasn't done a good job of demonstrating the Edge mechanic, particularly in the ways you can gain edge outside combat. IIRC it wasn't until the 3rd session that any of them noticed that the mage could gain edge simply by spending reagents while summoning spirits. Bear in mind that like any group actually playing a TTRPG, they're inevitably going to deviate from the rulebook in order to keep a game moving rather than boring their audience by repeated dives back into the rulebook to find technically correct answers. And this particular group of people are still feeling out the rules- the players didn't actually build anyone who could heal, so the greater accessibility of healing was moot... the GM wasn't familiar with all the 2nd order effects and threw a deadly encounter when he only meant to throw a softball... the players didn't fully grasp the actions available to them so they didn't take defensive actions to mitigate incoming damage (which in turn artificially exacerbated the impact of armor not helping on soak rolls...) Etc.
-
So I've been watching the Shadowcasters play-thru of shadowrun sixth world and I have to say I am not impressed with the game so far.
Opinions are never wrong, but I do feel like offering some of my own counter opinions and why I have them.
I would never say that an opinion is never wrong 8)
Some of my issues include:
1. The lack of armor as damage reduction seem to make even the simplest encounter deadly.
Add to this that the only real successes the team has had is when using things like invisibility to take the other-side by surprise.
Yes, it's an inherent change in paradigm from 5e. As such, there are some who'll never like it. You may well never prefer the change. OTOH, I'm optimistic about the new idea. Here's why: Optimized shadowrunners in 5e may as well have the "Immunity to Pistols and SMGs" critter power. Soak pools are too ridiculous for things like Fichetti 600s and HK-227s to ever deal any damage. If the NPCs are to actually challenge runners, they need Assault Rifles and APDS ammo. Likewise, if the GM builds NPCs the way players build PCs, then runners won't be able to go into combat with anything less than that, either.
Taken as part of a whole (particularly where healing is less restricted) being hurt more often isn't necessarily a bad thing for game balance. Speaking of healing...
I agree that armor was out of control in 5th, but I find that the writers over corrected for it in 6th. A rule as simple as armor adds 1/2 its rating to soak could have easily have fixed this issues and still could in 6th.
2. Healing using edge as a base is going to make the lack of armor as a DR even worse, since most a parties heavy hitters and front-line combatants are going to quickly be put out of action if all they can count on is their body for soak. As in previous edition depended on their armor to get them through.
I see most groups have ridiculous amounts of downtime after most missions.
Armor not contributing to a soak pool is NOT the same thing as being forced to depend on nothing but Body to soak. Just sayin'. Even in the SCN AP they were talking about some augmentations that are "don't leave home without them" if you're playing a runner who's going to be getting shot at.
This is not a good thing!
When you have "don't leave home without them" items/augments in the game then you have already failed in game design. Most games try to limit or eliminate these items/augments, not promote them as required.
3. The edge system in general seems to have been setup as this "super the game depends on it mechanic" and I don't see it living up to this faith the designers have put in it.
a. It seem to be very hard to get more edge outside of direct combat (ex.The mages inability to generate much edge).
b. If there is some advantages that are taking the place of armors DR I'm not seeing them.
c. From what I can see edge gain is not as fast as they have seemed to imply.
d. It seems like they are going with an " Edge can be substantiated for any mechanic" design, and I don't see this system as able to effectively replace most game mechanic
they think it will.
I will grant that the SCN group hasn't done a good job of demonstrating the Edge mechanic, particularly in the ways you can gain edge outside combat. IIRC it wasn't until the 3rd session that any of them noticed that the mage could gain edge simply by spending reagents while summoning spirits. Bear in mind that like any group actually playing a TTRPG, they're inevitably going to deviate from the rulebook in order to keep a game moving rather than boring their audience by repeated dives back into the rulebook to find technically correct answers. And this particular group of people are still feeling out the rules- the players didn't actually build anyone who could heal, so the greater accessibility of healing was moot... the GM wasn't familiar with all the 2nd order effects and threw a deadly encounter when he only meant to throw a softball... the players didn't fully grasp the actions available to them so they didn't take defensive actions to mitigate incoming damage (which in turn artificially exacerbated the impact of armor not helping on soak rolls...) Etc.
This is another strike against the game as it is forcing use of a mechanic just to get the standard currency of the game. This is not a good thing.
Lets say I decide to make a support mage and I am not interested in controlling spirits. The idea that to be an effective member of the team is a major turn-off for me right there. You really can't defend a mechanic that forces you to do something that you did not design do as a benefit or even a good idea. One of the major reasons I enjoy Shadowrun so much is the flexibility that gives the player to create a character that they want to play and lets them play them the way they want. If you are telling me that to effective play the game at an average challenge level that you have to play the way it wants you to then in my book the writes have failed to understand what makes Shadowrun , Shadowrun.
As I see it the writes fell into the streamlining trap of trying to make everything new and different but simplified the rule into a non-playable mess. This is not unusual when a company tries to streamline their game and is normally fixed in the next edition, so I will wait to see if they either fix the issues or wait for 7th to come out.
-
Given how you already cast your judgement, and there's no way they'll do a full rewrite of SR6 before release, see you in six years?
-
Given how you already cast your judgement, and there's no way they'll do a full rewrite of SR6 before release, see you in six years?
Wow, you'd think I kicked your dog or something?
First, let me say that nothing I have seen or said would warrant a full rewrite of the rules.
A simple change here or there would fix some or most of these issues.
As I said changing Armor to provide its DV to soak or 1/2 its DV if full value is to much would easily fix that issues.
Second, as for the Wild die, I don't see many players using it anyway so that not a big issues. It just seems like a waste of a rule as it will become an unused mechanic as players realize that the rewards do not outweigh the risks.
Third, all I think the edge system needs is an expanded list of options and a more developed mechanic for gain edge out side of direct confrontation combat/social/etc. If you want edge to take the place of armor there needs to be a recognizable and intuitive way for that to happen. Barring that, some examples of how players are meant to use it as an armor replacement would clear up some misconception if that is what it is.
That said, as it stands right now, it just seems like armor is going to fall into the "this is the armor you have to have" trap and there will be no use for anything but that armor.
The issues is when I voiced my concerns I don't get someone telling me that I misunderstood it or that not how it works.
I get someone telling me that's how it's supposed to work and I just have to adjust to it.
As for most of the other things I have heard about the game like, Skills, Priorities, etc. I fine these changes to be a good thing and so do most of my players.
But the armor, must have items issues, etc. overshadow the good changes.
In short I was not saying that the game needs a full rewrite for me to look at it again, I was just say that IMHO some of the rule need to be reconsidered or there intent explained for me to do that.
But if as you imply from you statement that the writes and you don't care what I think then, yes I will see you in 6 years.
-
Yes, it's an inherent change in paradigm from 5e. As such, there are some who'll never like it. You may well never prefer the change. OTOH, I'm optimistic about the new idea. Here's why: Optimized shadowrunners in 5e may as well have the "Immunity to Pistols and SMGs" critter power. Soak pools are too ridiculous for things like Fichetti 600s and HK-227s to ever deal any damage. If the NPCs are to actually challenge runners, they need Assault Rifles and APDS ammo. Likewise, if the GM builds NPCs the way players build PCs, then runners won't be able to go into combat with anything less than that, either.
Most players don't optimize that hard, and now an integral, perfectly functional mechanic is being discarded because of abuse that only happens at the bell-ends. I repeat, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.
Armor not contributing to a soak pool is NOT the same thing as being forced to depend on nothing but Body to soak. Just sayin'. Even in the SCN AP they were talking about some augmentations that are "don't leave home without them" if you're playing a runner who's going to be getting shot at.
"Runner who's going to be shot at"? You mean "every runner"?
Bear in mind that like any group actually playing a TTRPG, they're inevitably going to deviate from the rulebook in order to keep a game moving rather than boring their audience by repeated dives back into the rulebook to find technically correct answers.
I've had some thoughts about this recently. You know that environmental modifiers chart on pg 175 of the CRB? With the right gear, you can make almost half that chart go away and it's mechanically beneficial for the player to do so. It seems to me that "lots of complex things to look up" is a self-solving problem when you provide the means to bypass them entirely.
-
Let's be sure to keep comments civilized, chummers
-
I will grant that the SCN group hasn't done a good job of demonstrating the Edge mechanic, particularly in the ways you can gain edge outside combat. IIRC it wasn't until the 3rd session that any of them noticed that the mage could gain edge simply by spending reagents while summoning spirits. Bear in mind that like any group actually playing a TTRPG, they're inevitably going to deviate from the rulebook in order to keep a game moving rather than boring their audience by repeated dives back into the rulebook to find technically correct answers. And this particular group of people are still feeling out the rules- the players didn't actually build anyone who could heal, so the greater accessibility of healing was moot... the GM wasn't familiar with all the 2nd order effects and threw a deadly encounter when he only meant to throw a softball... the players didn't fully grasp the actions available to them so they didn't take defensive actions to mitigate incoming damage (which in turn artificially exacerbated the impact of armor not helping on soak rolls...) Etc.
I wanted to address this one on its own.
If this is the case then they are doing Shadowrun, the views, Catalyst game, etc. a major disservice.
They are in a unique position of having access to the Core rules before they have been released, so no one can fact check them and we have to take their word for this is how the game works.
If they take the attitude that lets fudge here and there and not show how the true rules work.
Then they are giving a false impression of the rules to the people that will buy them when they come out and may drive away some potential clients due to a misunderstanding of how the rule work.
In short, they should make every effort to insure that they are using the rules as write and if they need to dive into the rulebook every 5 mins I don't think the views will care as long as they are see the RAR so they can make up their minds if they want to play.
-
I will grant that the SCN group hasn't done a good job of demonstrating the Edge mechanic, particularly in the ways you can gain edge outside combat. IIRC it wasn't until the 3rd session that any of them noticed that the mage could gain edge simply by spending reagents while summoning spirits. Bear in mind that like any group actually playing a TTRPG, they're inevitably going to deviate from the rulebook in order to keep a game moving rather than boring their audience by repeated dives back into the rulebook to find technically correct answers. And this particular group of people are still feeling out the rules- the players didn't actually build anyone who could heal, so the greater accessibility of healing was moot... the GM wasn't familiar with all the 2nd order effects and threw a deadly encounter when he only meant to throw a softball... the players didn't fully grasp the actions available to them so they didn't take defensive actions to mitigate incoming damage (which in turn artificially exacerbated the impact of armor not helping on soak rolls...) Etc.
I wanted to address this one on its own.
If this is the case then they are doing Shadowrun, the views, Catalyst game, etc. a major disservice.
They are in a unique position of having access to the Core rules before they have been released, so no one can fact check them and we have to take their word for this is how the game works.
If they take the attitude that lets fudge here and there and not show how the true rules work.
Then they are giving a false impression of the rules to the people that will buy them when they come out and may drive away some potential clients due to a misunderstanding of how the rule work.
In short, they should make every effort to insure that they are using the rules as write and if they need to dive into the rulebook every 5 mins I don't think the views will care as long as they are see the RAR so they can make up their minds if they want to play.
Well, I never meant to say they were deliberately changing the rules. It really IS a thing to "not know what you don't know". For example, they didn't deliberately ignore the edge-for-summoning -with-reagents rule, they just never realized it existed until a good ways in.
As far as I can tell, a clinical adherence to the rules isn't their primary concern. But that's not an indictment... literally the description that they're Actually Playing the game is in the name of the podcast. As I said upthread, every TTRPG game ever played (as opposed to demo'd) takes liberties with the rules. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know.
My take-away from watching the podcasts is watching the players and GM make mistakes and learning from them before I finally get to play. (Wow, better make sure someone on the team takes the Biotech skill. Wow, better remember to save actions to dodge or take cover. Wow, when I'm designing an encounter, remember to forget 5e...)
-
the game now plays like a push your limit board game, substituting the edge mechanic for any connection to reality.
melee and firearms damage codes are divorced from reality.
armor has no relevance to survival.
beyond complexity almost none of 5e's issues are resolved.
it's like the designers got distracted by inserting a board game mechanic into a ttrpg.
i'm expecting catalyst to start selling "Edge tokens" to keep track of everything with the tabletop eventually looking like a boardgame without a board.
our table has decided to skip 6e and stick with a home-modified version of 5e.
sad the opportunity was missed and instead of taking the best bits out of 5e and making the game more approachable the designers decided to take us into boardgame land.
-
I think they already ARE selling edge tokens or as a planned release in August at least.
http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2019/05/preview-the-lineup-of-shadowrun-sixth-edition-rulebooks-sourcebooks-and-game-aids/
-
boom!
board-less board game here we come
-
I think they already ARE selling edge tokens or as a planned release in August at least.
http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2019/05/preview-the-lineup-of-shadowrun-sixth-edition-rulebooks-sourcebooks-and-game-aids/
My wife would kill me if I get even more dice, so I think I'll pass on these, but the GM Screen is a must for me!
Meanwhile, I should have plenty of tokens at hand that I can use for Edge. (Or use Edge cards.) Though I should definitely figure out a way to track the 'max 2 per round' thing...
-
I'm envisioning placing 2 chips/tokens in front of each player at the start of a combat round. Player takes them when earned, and can only end up grabbing a max of 2!
I'm sure the players will remind me and keep me front letting a NPC claim more than 2 per round.
-
My take-away from watching the podcasts is watching the players and GM make mistakes and learning from them before I finally get to play. (Wow, better make sure someone on the team takes the Biotech skill. Wow, better remember to save actions to dodge or take cover. Wow, when I'm designing an encounter, remember to forget 5e...)
Every edition of Shadowrun has incentivized having first aid skills on the team and taking cover when under fire. Why are you talking about this like it's some kind of paradigm shift?
-
My take-away from watching the podcasts is watching the players and GM make mistakes and learning from them before I finally get to play. (Wow, better make sure someone on the team takes the Biotech skill. Wow, better remember to save actions to dodge or take cover. Wow, when I'm designing an encounter, remember to forget 5e...)
Every edition of Shadowrun has incentivized having first aid skills on the team and taking cover when under fire. Why are you talking about this like it's some kind of paradigm shift?
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
-
I'm envisioning placing 2 chips/tokens in front of each player at the start of a combat round. Player takes them when earned, and can only end up grabbing a max of 2!
I'm sure the players will remind me and keep me front letting a NPC claim more than 2 per round.
Hm... I should use two-sided cards in transparant sleeves: Unclaimed/claimed.
-
i can't wait for the shadowrun trading card game to come back and replace shadowrun the ttrpg.
PokeShadowMon!
Now with abstracted mechanics that bear no resemblance to anything IRL, no need to pay attention to what weapon or armor you're using as it's all irrelevant.
It's the total triumph of rule of cool over verisimilitude.
yaay.....?
-
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
I mean those things are a contributing factor sure, but two say any change has more to do with taking a beating then the armor change is at best foolish in my opinion.
-
Eh, given how the alternative is 'everyone gets massive armor and then nobody fears an army of weak gangers', I'd say this new mechanic is more real Shadowrun. Plus we don't even know all of the new DVs and new armor ratings, so it's rather a moot debate at this point.
-
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
So what you're telling me is that between the players and what was written on the character sheets, the demo crew were the exact sort of runners that naturally get themselves killed on their first run on account of their own incompetence/inexperience. Not exactly reassuring.
-
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
So what you're telling me is that between the players and what was written on the character sheets, the demo crew were the exact sort of runners that naturally get themselves killed on their first run on account of their own incompetence/inexperience. Not exactly reassuring.
Well, when you've been conditioned a ruleset where 20 to 30 soak dice renders you immune to gangers and devil rats, it stands to reason that your instincts have to be unlearned even if you intellectually know you don't HAVE a soak pool of 20 to 30 dice any longer. It's a failure, sure, but a very understandable one if you forget to focus on taking cover the first time you face opposition you could wade through unharmed in 5e.
-
Eh, given how the alternative is 'everyone gets massive armor and then nobody fears an army of weak gangers', I'd say this new mechanic is more real Shadowrun. Plus we don't even know all of the new DVs and new armor ratings, so it's rather a moot debate at this point.
There is a ridiculous range of options between massive pools and nothing to soak. This mechanic is less real shadowrun. Armor doing nothing for soak has never been shadowrun until well 6e. Doing too much is a much smaller leap than to 0.
-
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
So what you're telling me is that between the players and what was written on the character sheets, the demo crew were the exact sort of runners that naturally get themselves killed on their first run on account of their own incompetence/inexperience. Not exactly reassuring.
For some reason all Pre-gens for all games are mechanically bad, at best. Catalyst pre-gens, unfortunately, are historically and hysterically bad. I suspect strongly it's a mix of Player/GM inexperience and mechanically weak characters that contribute to the hilarity on the Actual Plays.
-
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
So what you're telling me is that between the players and what was written on the character sheets, the demo crew were the exact sort of runners that naturally get themselves killed on their first run on account of their own incompetence/inexperience. Not exactly reassuring.
Well, when you've been conditioned a ruleset where 20 to 30 soak dice renders you immune to gangers and devil rats, it stands to reason that your instincts have to be unlearned even if you intellectually know you don't HAVE a soak pool of 20 to 30 dice any longer. It's a failure, sure, but a very understandable one if you forget to focus on taking cover the first time you face opposition you could wade through unharmed in 5e.
Literally none of my players until the street sam recently wared up to be a semi tank we’re immune to gangers. And if they are using a AK he still takes damage. None of them rolled 20-30 dice. Min maxing that way be the norm at your table, but I don’t think it was a shadowrun norm. Most people I’ve seen roll 16ish dice. Now they may only take stun from gangers but they still can get dropped.
Using heavy pistol 3 if they had bumped it to dv 6 and full clothing armor auto soaked 3 dv you’d literally be in the same spot but armor would do something.
Side note dv 3 sucks. You need 7 net hits to kill random goon and hope they don’t get a single hit on their soak. Assault rifles doing 2 more dv pushes people to big guns just so they have a reasonable chance to drop a goon in one shot. I’d of bumped pistols to 6 with armor doing the above. Assault rifles about the same but they have versatility and a higher attack value. Big less versatile guns like shotguns, snipers dv 7, cannons 8. 1 dv is significant when you need roughly 3 dice to soak or raise it.
-
Just as irl our team has a set of armored street clothes, a set of armored high-fashion clothes and a set of ballistic entrance armor for high-threat situations.
With option 1 or 2 most of them can be threatened with a pistol.
With option 3 most of them cannot.
This is good game design as it reinforces the core conceit of Shadowrun; the appropriate archetype / gear / ware/ tool for the job.
Security rating of the area they are operating in becomes an absolutely essential component of running a black trench (or just non-pink mohawk) game.
With the rules changes shadowrun is now full-on pink mohawk with no room for realistic feeling reactions to player's actions as it's now literally codified into the system.
thanks but i'd rather play with a bag of rocks.
-
Its funny now that I think about it.
The issues that they where trying to address with the new armor rules (I think) was the for lack of a better work "Troll Battlefield tanks"
There answer to make armor useless for everyone only makes this problem worse as these character are still going to be the only ones that can stand-up to a firefight.
The real problem with the armor system in 5th edition is the high armor ratings combined with high body that allow player like this to brush off most attacks.
So a true fix for this issues would be to either just make armor rating smaller or remove body from the equation.
I mean body already sets how much damage you can take so why does it also have to proved soak?
Just a thought.
-
Its funny now that I think about it.
The issues that they where trying to address with the new armor rules (I think) was the for lack of a better work "Troll Battlefield tanks"
There answer to make armor useless for everyone only makes this problem worse as these character are still going to be the only ones that can stand-up to a firefight.
The real problem with the armor system in 5th edition is the high armor ratings combined with high body that allow player like this to brush off most attacks.
So a true fix for this issues would be to either just make armor rating smaller or remove body from the equation.
I mean body already sets how much damage you can take so why does it also have to proved soak?
Just a thought.
Be prepared for the 9 body 1 strength troll overlords.
As for ditching body as a soak pool is day it would feel inconsistent for things that armor does not effect like poison or disease.
-
the game now plays like a push your limit board game, substituting the edge mechanic for any connection to reality.
melee and firearms damage codes are divorced from reality.
armor has no relevance to survival.
beyond complexity almost none of 5e's issues are resolved.
it's like the designers got distracted by inserting a board game mechanic into a ttrpg.
i'm expecting catalyst to start selling "Edge tokens" to keep track of everything with the tabletop eventually looking like a boardgame without a board.
our table has decided to skip 6e and stick with a home-modified version of 5e.
sad the opportunity was missed and instead of taking the best bits out of 5e and making the game more approachable the designers decided to take us into boardgame land.
Adzling have you read the CRB? Everything you said lines up with what I've heard. But if you have read it, then I'm prepared to skip 6e and go try to determine which past version I plan to use for the foreseeable future.
-
Eh, given how the alternative is 'everyone gets massive armor and then nobody fears an army of weak gangers', I'd say this new mechanic is more real Shadowrun.
I don't think anyone would argue that the soak potential in 5e was extreme enough to be unbalanced, but wearing a decent ballistic vest, getting shot with a medium power pistol, and it doing nothing to protect you from the wound is lolsy at best. There is certainly room for a balanced medium.
Be prepared for the 9 body 1 strength troll overlords.
Bearing in mind I have not seen anything more than the QSR, I have a theory that a mystic adept troll with max body, increase body, armor spell, and mystic armor adept power will be the new tank. Maybe even drop that essence some for soak ware if the goal is maximum soak. We'll see if the final mechanics prove me right or wrong.
-
I have not heard about mistake adepts yet in 6e. Given how the general consensus was they were broken in 5e I wonder how they over corrected to fix that in 6e.
-
I have not heard about mistake adepts yet in 6e. Given how the general consensus was they were broken in 5e I wonder how they over corrected to fix that in 6e.
Given their track record so far on "Fixing" issues with 5th in the new game i'm surprised they didn't just eliminated them like they did for armor.
They will probably go from broken to zero in this edition like everything else they thought was broken.
Lets see, we have tanks that can't tank, mages that do more damage to themselves then the enemy, etc.
Why not mystic adepts that can magic.
-
Be prepared for the 9 body 1 strength troll overlords.
As for ditching body as a soak pool is day it would feel inconsistent for things that armor does not effect like poison or disease.
Be more prepared for the Str 10, Body 2 Punch bots. A Shadowrun team is going to look like a 40k Ogryn Squad. Bunch of silly guns mostly for looks while charging, then get stuck in and shred stuff.
-
You should make your mind up for yourself.
the game now plays like a push your limit board game, substituting the edge mechanic for any connection to reality.
melee and firearms damage codes are divorced from reality.
armor has no relevance to survival.
beyond complexity almost none of 5e's issues are resolved.
it's like the designers got distracted by inserting a board game mechanic into a ttrpg.
i'm expecting catalyst to start selling "Edge tokens" to keep track of everything with the tabletop eventually looking like a boardgame without a board.
our table has decided to skip 6e and stick with a home-modified version of 5e.
sad the opportunity was missed and instead of taking the best bits out of 5e and making the game more approachable the designers decided to take us into boardgame land.
Adzling have you read the CRB? Everything you said lines up with what I've heard. But if you have read it, then I'm prepared to skip 6e and go try to determine which past version I plan to use for the foreseeable future.
-
Be prepared for the 9 body 1 strength troll overlords.
As for ditching body as a soak pool is day it would feel inconsistent for things that armor does not effect like poison or disease.
Be more prepared for the Str 10, Body 2 Punch bots. A Shadowrun team is going to look like a 40k Ogryn Squad. Bunch of silly guns mostly for looks while charging, then get stuck in and shred stuff.
I guess it depends on how the damage for unarmed is calculated. 1/2 str would put 10 str at single shot assault rifle damage. I’d rather be a tank and just shoot you. If it’s full strength. Yeah I can see some strength builds happening as a trolls fist will out damage assault cannons. But having to use a minor to move and only getting one move action a turn is pretty limiting for melee.
-
Eh, given how the alternative is 'everyone gets massive armor and then nobody fears an army of weak gangers', I'd say this new mechanic is more real Shadowrun.
I don't think anyone would argue that the soak potential in 5e was extreme enough to be unbalanced, but wearing a decent ballistic vest, getting shot with a medium power pistol, and it doing nothing to protect you from the wound is lolsy at best. There is certainly room for a balanced medium.
Eh, there's a sample character with 36 soak dice in 5e. Even a decent augmented character already hit 25+. If you augment Strength and use cyberware, that 36 was quite doable too.
Bearing in mind I have not seen anything more than the QSR, I have a theory that a mystic adept troll with max body, increase body, armor spell, and mystic armor adept power will be the new tank. Maybe even drop that essence some for soak ware if the goal is maximum soak. We'll see if the final mechanics prove me right or wrong.
Honestly I suspect that <X> from QSR is a big mistake, given how it contradicts what they said about their intent with <Y>, so I don't expect <X> to be part of the real rules. (Spoilers due to NDA.)
-
the game now plays like a push your limit board game, substituting the edge mechanic for any connection to reality.
melee and firearms damage codes are divorced from reality.
armor has no relevance to survival.
beyond complexity almost none of 5e's issues are resolved.
it's like the designers got distracted by inserting a board game mechanic into a ttrpg.
i'm expecting catalyst to start selling "Edge tokens" to keep track of everything with the tabletop eventually looking like a boardgame without a board.
our table has decided to skip 6e and stick with a home-modified version of 5e.
sad the opportunity was missed and instead of taking the best bits out of 5e and making the game more approachable the designers decided to take us into boardgame land.
...+1
-
My take-away from watching the podcasts is watching the players and GM make mistakes and learning from them before I finally get to play. (Wow, better make sure someone on the team takes the Biotech skill. Wow, better remember to save actions to dodge or take cover. Wow, when I'm designing an encounter, remember to forget 5e...)
Every edition of Shadowrun has incentivized having first aid skills on the team and taking cover when under fire. Why are you talking about this like it's some kind of paradigm shift?
...crikey even my 5E Decker Violet has First Aid skill (heck with an 8 Logic, two rating points in First Aid, plus a rating 6 medkit, that' a pool of 16).
-
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
So what you're telling me is that between the players and what was written on the character sheets, the demo crew were the exact sort of runners that naturally get themselves killed on their first run on account of their own incompetence/inexperience. Not exactly reassuring.
Well, when you've been conditioned a ruleset where 20 to 30 soak dice renders you immune to gangers and devil rats, it stands to reason that your instincts have to be unlearned even if you intellectually know you don't HAVE a soak pool of 20 to 30 dice any longer. It's a failure, sure, but a very understandable one if you forget to focus on taking cover the first time you face opposition you could wade through unharmed in 5e.
...however, what if they had the same rule in 5E where Grunts and Critters could attack as a group (like drones in a swarm)? That would change the dynamic. Suddenly those SMGs or bite/claw attacks begin to make a character go "ow." Taking stun damage can still be just as effective as lethal damage as once a character is down for the count, they are no longer a factor in the combat. When down, there is also no defence roll against additional attacks against them.
-
I'm talking about it because they didn't do any of that in the Actual Play. And I think the beatings the characters took have more to do with those things than the change of armor not contributing to soak pools.
So what you're telling me is that between the players and what was written on the character sheets, the demo crew were the exact sort of runners that naturally get themselves killed on their first run on account of their own incompetence/inexperience. Not exactly reassuring.
For some reason all Pre-gens for all games are mechanically bad, at best. Catalyst pre-gens, unfortunately, are historically and hysterically bad. I suspect strongly it's a mix of Player/GM inexperience and mechanically weak characters that contribute to the hilarity on the Actual Plays.
...in our Missions group one of our core GMs rewrote some of the core rule pregens and created several more that actually could survive and do something so new players weren't stuck with playing "bullet catchers".
-
I don't think anyone would argue that the soak potential in 5e was extreme enough to be unbalanced, but wearing a decent ballistic vest, getting shot with a medium power pistol, and it doing nothing to protect you from the wound is lolsy at best. There is certainly room for a balanced medium.
Incidentally, the fun part is that from the sound of how they handle burst attacks and mook-groups, you'll take LESS hits from a group of enemies than before, yet people insist it will be more deadly. In SR5, I could face 5 gangers with SMGs, they would burst-fire and I'd face a -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 against their attacks. In SR6, if all five combine in a single swarm, they get what, a single +2 and a better chance at scoring Edge? And the base DV is far less so even if they catch me with just an armored vest, I won't get butchered in a single round? I'll take that any day.
Don't even get me started on APDS-loaded Ares Alphas when you're a normal runner wearing an Armor Jacket: I'd take 4P+ average per hit in SR5, I think? So if they were to use a Simple-Action FA Burst, chances are I'd get hit at least 3x and go down unless I used Full Defense and a point or two of Edge. A single mook-attack of what, 5P? Will do 3P+ average, and I won't face 5 attacks in 1 turn.
-
Eh, there's a sample character with 36 soak dice in 5e. Even a decent augmented character already hit 25+. If you augment Strength and use cyberware, that 36 was quite doable too.
Sure, so that's one archetype out of seven. I would say the average soak pool is closer to 21 (5 body and sleeping tiger/coat). Average PR 1 ganger will average 2 damage per hit.
Honestly I suspect that <X> from QSR is a big mistake, given how it contradicts what they said about their intent with <Y>, so I don't expect <X> to be part of the real rules. (Spoilers due to NDA.)
We'll just have to see. It makes sense as written, and I suspect (hope?) it is the magic answer to ware for the same thing.
Incidentally, the fun part is that from the sound of how they handle burst attacks and mook-groups, you'll take LESS hits from a group of enemies than before, yet people insist it will be more deadly. In SR5, I could face 5 gangers with SMGs, they would burst-fire and I'd face a -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 against their attacks. In SR6, if all five combine in a single swarm, they get what, a single +2 and a better chance at scoring Edge? And the base DV is far less so even if they catch me with just an armored vest, I won't get butchered in a single round? I'll take that any day.
For fairly average runners vs. fairly average mooks, I agree. In 5e, that would not be true for defense specialized PCs. Not enough info to judge how a defense specialized PC would fair in the same situation in 6th. I don't really have an issue with the mook gang up though.
And yes, APDS ares alphas will ruin an average runner. I do not have a broad play experience with how people across the country build characters, but in Columbus Missions, we don't have many "average" runners.
-
Street sams will easily reach 6 or 9 more soak depending on bioware vs cyberware, with armor and soak ware.
As for <X>, Edit: You make a good point, but there's another spell you can use to boost one's soak rolls. And I mostly hope we prevent a massive overkill, since it risks the damage numbers getting just as skewy as in SR5: What can kill one person may only tickle another.
As for defense-aimed PCs, I am so going to focus on defensive actions and a high reaction + intuition... Psyche boosts Intuition, right? Guess I need to add yet another drug for my combat monster.
Edit: Mind you, having a houserule with AV/X in autohits on soak might work for some tables. But we'll have to wait for the edition to come out and see how dangerous the fights feel before we can provide any substantial feedback on those.
-
I have always encouraged soak a little Over 20 in 5e. Yes you can get much bigger pools but doing so now also means the GM has to do crazy things like adps loaded alpha to be a threat. Which not good for anyone.
Now I can’t say what the national average is, my data pool just isn’t big enough. But I didn’t regularly Encounter pools above 20 in con play
In my area. But I also don’t recall a combat that involved an adps loaded alpha. I think there was a fight with adps, and one with an alpha.
I’m fine with a some level of a break between simulationism and mechanics. But armor should do something to soak damage. At the point armor truly becomes more relavent as fashion then to soak the simulationist break is just too high.
It’s also worth noting that catalyst has a habit of over reaction. TM bring the prefect example, and Banshee still argued it wasn’t an overreaction even after they fixed it.
That’s a sure sign of a serious disconnect between the designers and the community.
-
Marcus I'm not responding specifically to you per se, I'm just quoting you because you're the most recent person who said something along the lines of "armor does NOTHING in 6e":
... But armor should do something to soak damage. At the point armor truly becomes more relavent as fashion then to soak the simulationist break is just too high...
I know opinions have by now solidified among the prolific posters, so I'm in truth addressing anyone who might be reading the thread looking for info about SR6 at this point... I don't want hyperbolic statements about armor "doing nothing" to be taken as being correct.
Yes, armor doesn't contribute to soak pools. No, that's not the same thing as armor doing nothing at all. Nor MUST armor help soak damage in order to reasonably represent a defensive benefit from wearing armor. As cited a couple times upthread, armor doesn't do anything to soak damage in d20 RPG systems, either (barring of course, the "armor as DR" optional rules available in certain systems). In this example, armor instead makes you harder to be successfully attacked and therefore indirectly "soaks" damage by preventing it in the first place.
Armor in SR6 won't contribute to soak pools. Yes it's a big change and naturally there are people who don't like that particular big change. It's ok to not like it. But armor in SR6 DOES still help in the form of giving tactical advantage, or at least denying it to your opponent. That tactical advantage (i.e. Edge in SR6) in turn helps you in whatever way you want it to. Sure, maybe on the dodge test. Maybe on the soak test. Or maybe you pocket it and use it later.
So please as a public service to those who haven't obsessed over SR6 as much as some of us vocal participants, do please stop saying Armor does nothing. If you don't like the change, please be accurate in your criticism and complain that you feel the benefit it does give is too abstract. Or not strong enough. Or unreasonably fungible. Or whatever. At the very least, if you have a hope that CGL will listen to your feedback and act upon it, you'll have to at least be accurate in your critiques.
-
per the demo play rerolling one die for having armor far superior to the attacking weapon is effectively so small as to be no benefit.
nothing else regarding the effects of armor has been publicly shown afaik.
rerolling one die when you wearing an armor jacket, helmet etc against a pistol is weak sauce indeed.
some would say it's functionally irrelevant.
-
per the demo play rerolling one die for having armor far superior to the attacking weapon is effectively so small as to be no benefit.
nothing else regarding the effects of armor has been publicly shown afaik.
rerolling one die when you wearing an armor jacket, helmet etc against a pistol is weak sauce indeed.
some would say it's functionally irrelevant.
And that's a much more fair assessment than some of the dark places this thread has gone :)
I've got my concerns about armor as well. But I'm largely ok with armor not actually performing like in 5e.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b00de939b68dfe7ccc46df41440f87d4)
In 5e, for game balance purposes, you're just not allowed to aim for the unarmored portions of the body. The way I see it in 6e, if the guy's wearing a bullet proof vest it's already assumed you're just aiming for the face. or whatever :) The better the armor, the more careful you have to be about where you shoot, and in turn that gives advantage to the target. One rationale of many that needn't necessarily be explicitly spelled out to emerge from the veil of abstraction.
My concerns about armor?
1) Since you can only gain edge so often, armor quickly DOES get marginalized if you're getting ganged up on.
2) Soak pools seem decently balanced against DVs in the CRB. But SR6 will have a corpus of more than just the CRB before very long at all. They'll have to do a much better job of resisting the urge to give in to power creep than they did in 5e expansion books.
I do have my hopes about each of these. 1: If you're getting outnumbered 2 or 3 to one, you SHOULD be in a world of trouble... so I'm provisionally ok with this still. And besides, even though you can only GAIN edge so often, you can DENY edge indefinitely! and 2: we'll just have to see.
-
To be fair: if those mooks group-attack, it will hurt but you won't die. And if your defense pool is good, chances are you won't need the edge yet. Especially if you use a defence action.
A small asides to people: please do not ask if people are getting stuff from the actual rules. Those under NDA are doing their best to participate in debates without violating the NDA, and suggesting they're talking about things that are still under NDA can get people in trouble. Everyone, even Banshee, but also the errata team and demo team, are still strictly bound.
-
To be fair: if those mooks group-attack, it will hurt but you won't die. And if your defense pool is good, chances are you won't need the edge yet. Especially if you use a defence action.
A small asides to people: please do not ask if people are getting stuff from the actual rules. Those under NDA are doing their best to participate in debates without violating the NDA, and suggesting they're talking about things that are still under NDA can get people in trouble. Everyone, even Banshee, but also the errata team and demo team, are still strictly bound.
Very true.
But also, with regards to armor and group attacks: when groups are boiled down into 1 swarm attack, the armor only has to help once. That's a big factor as well.
-
So I’m perfectly willing to say as armor has been described to date armor is meaningless. Adding to this no on in the pro 6 side has said anything to address the over reaction argument. When pools go from 20+ to probably below 5 how can it not be an over reaction?
-
So please as a public service to those who haven't obsessed over SR6 as much as some of us vocal participants, do please stop saying Armor does nothing. If you don't like the change, please be accurate in your criticism and complain that you feel the benefit it does give is too abstract. Or not strong enough. Or unreasonably fungible. Or whatever. At the very least, if you have a hope that CGL will listen to your feedback and act upon it, you'll have to at least be accurate in your critiques.
Thank you for this. We don't even know yet what ware and magic will do, so we can't make any 100% statements yet.
-
So I’m perfectly willing to say as armor has been described to date armor is meaningless. Adding to this no on in the pro 6 side has said anything to address the over reaction argument. When pools go from 20+ to probably below 5 how can it not be an over reaction?
I did. But since it was a good bit earlier, I'll reiterate:
It's not so much a matter of the size of the soak pool as the net effect that's important.
In 5e: a hit ends up being negligible or devastating. if your armor rating is high enough to turn it to stun, the DV is also usually small enough in comparison to the soak pool that either there's no stun at all or so little stun that a Stim patch removes it. If the DV is high enough to be Physical damage instead, it's also probably so high in proportion to the soak pool that you're a goner.
In 6e: Soak pools are TINY in comparison, but DVs are also somewhat lower... just not AS reduced from 5e as soak pools were.
So huge difference in soak pools, coupled with some other 2nd order effects, ends up meaning in 6e you can expect to take some moderate damage if you're shot, as opposed to in 5e where you expect to take nothing at all or dying with little plausible occurrence of anything in between.
And as mentioned previously, another 2nd order change of this is 6e is slightly more healing friendly... damage in 6e goes away easier than in 5e so that somewhat mitigates the expectation that you'll take SOME damage if you get shot.
-
Crazy opinion: you should be able to make yourself immune to small arms fire with enough armor. Maybe it shouldn't easy to do, maybe it shouldn't be something you can do right out of character generation, but it should be doable. If someone in milspec armor can still be hurt by a well-placed shot from a peashooter then there's really no point to having armor.
Just as irl our team has a set of armored street clothes, a set of armored high-fashion clothes and a set of ballistic entrance armor for high-threat situations.
With option 1 or 2 most of them can be threatened with a pistol.
With option 3 most of them cannot.
This is good game design as it reinforces the core conceit of Shadowrun; the appropriate archetype / gear / ware/ tool for the job.
Security rating of the area they are operating in becomes an absolutely essential component of running a black trench (or just non-pink mohawk) game.
With the rules changes shadowrun is now full-on pink mohawk with no room for realistic feeling reactions to player's actions as it's now literally codified into the system.
thanks but i'd rather play with a bag of rocks.
This isn't even about BT vs PM anymore. Pink Mohawk players know they're going to be shot at, and load up on armor so that they can survive their rampages of destruction.
-
The lack of armor adding to soak imo has 2 negatives. On the one side it makes armor close to pointless and breaks verisimilitude. Which has been discussed already.
On the other side when you balance guns, knives etc to people not having a decent soak the attacks seem awfully weak and players effectively become incapable of taking out a unarmored Target in a single attack. Combat knifes are DV 1. You’d need 10 net hits to comfortably kill someone who isn’t wearing armor. I’m taking random wage slave who is unaware. Assume it’s a sap for non lethal attacks. You need a 30 die pool to kill a unresisting rando with a knife. You won’t use spurs, knives etc if the base damage is 2 you will jump up to whatever is big enough damage to seem effective.
I think players are okay not one shoting armored security. They can rationalize that. But being incapable of taking out the ganger in leather or instantly subdue the wage slave you are extracting makes you seem pathetic not a cybered up combat monster or magically powered martial artist.
Most weapons should be in the 3-4 net hits to deadly damage range. Weak weapons maybe 5-6 big guns 2-3. With a TN of 5 that’s already a pretty substantial pool to pull it off routinely. Bumping it to 7 for a heavy pistol is just crazy. Especially when ordinary dude on average knocks 2 hits off your successes.
-
Well, a synthesis I've formulated is another apparent design intent is that combats are supposed to be more than rocket tag. You're not SUPPOSED to be killed by one shot, which of course tends to carry over to you not killing NPCs with every blow either (barring of course a 6e version of 5e's "Mowing them Down" rule). Combat looks more back and forth by design than "who gets the first shot off".
Now this doesn't help the Pink Mohawk playstyle perhaps... but even that DV3 pistol can still one shot the NPC if you just sneak up on him and cap him before he knows you're there. No dodge + tiny soak pool = devastating, even at low DVs.
-
Even without a dodge you need a 24 dice pool to do it on average. Maybe less with a called shot. Again you could have had the same soak end result with armor.
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
-
Now this doesn't help the Pink Mohawk playstyle perhaps... but even that DV3 pistol can still one shot the NPC if you just sneak up on him and cap him before he knows you're there. No dodge + tiny soak pool = devastating, even at low DVs.
Honestly that's at the point I think cinematic gameplay may apply instead. Rule of cool and all.
-
Even without a dodge you need a 24 dice pool to do it on average. Maybe less with a called shot. Again you could have had the same soak end result with armor.
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
It’s a nice constructive suggestion. I think this has been argued in circles for awhile. It’s nice to something purposed to address the issue.
-
You're not SUPPOSED to be killed by one shot, which of course tends to carry over to you not killing NPCs with every blow either
That's a bad thing. There is supposed to be a distinct asymmetry between you and whatever poor son of a bitch you're shooting at. Part of that is you planning, being better prepared and using better tactics, but part of that is also that you're more skilled, fit and have better equipment. The wageslave #98567856875 dies after 1 burst, while the street sam survives 3 bursts.
-
Even without a dodge you need a 24 dice pool to do it on average. Maybe less with a called shot. Again you could have had the same soak end result with armor.
Well, if you're not going to spend edge on one shotting a sentry you have the drop on, then yeah he'll probably come out of it with a not quite filled CM. But if you've successfully snuck up on him, surely you not only HAVE tactical advantage when you make the attack, you've probably also earned some during the course of sneaking up on him. Edge is meant to be easy come, easy spend. Probably should spend some if you want to one shot someone.
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
It’s a nice constructive suggestion. I think this has been argued in circles for awhile. It’s nice to something purposed to address the issue.
I agree it's a neat idea, and who knows, maybe some armors or alternate "hero mode" combat rules may come in future books to implement it. Of course, getting more soak hits will serve to exacerbate the issue of how hard it is to one-shot a sentry.
-
Even without a dodge you need a 24 dice pool to do it on average. Maybe less with a called shot. Again you could have had the same soak end result with armor.
Well, if you're not going to spend edge on one shotting a sentry you have the drop on, then yeah he'll probably come out of it with a not quite filled CM. But if you've successfully snuck up on him, surely you not only HAVE tactical advantage when you make the attack, you've probably also earned some during the course of sneaking up on him. Edge is meant to be easy come, easy spend. Probably should spend some if you want to one shot someone.
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
It’s a nice constructive suggestion. I think this has been argued in circles for awhile. It’s nice to something purposed to address the issue.
I agree it's a neat idea, and who knows, maybe some armors or alternate "hero mode" combat rules may come in future books to implement it. Of course, getting more soak hits will serve to exacerbate the issue of how hard it is to one-shot a sentry.
In theory you’d increase the damage a like amount. Like heavy pistols would have a base 6 damage. So the net is the same for armored opposition like guards but trivial opposition would get taken out easily. Having to still work to drop real security even from ambush is less troubling than being able to drop a wage slave.
This is where I think the staging system worked better. Weapons could have a base damage of moderate or 3 boxes and get bumped to deadly relatively easily(4 net hits) if they had dropped the TN to 4 which I always felt they should have anyways 6-7 net hits is a bit more doable. But at TN 5 without staging you need a massive pool to increase damage to deadly. Or just use huge guns. TN 4 is less swingy and it does a better job of reflecting differences in skill at a smaller scale. At the extreme of things like knives it would still be absurd pools needed but even the. 18-20 pool vs 30 is a big gain.
-
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
-
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
Too bad my group faded out of playtesting in 5e. We would of added at least one more voice for this.
-
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
Would make a nice optional houserule, dunno what to do with weapon damage though... Boost all with 3? But then again, given how people complain about lethality already, not sure if it'd be a good idea.
-
If you upped damage by 3 and armor auto soaked 3 you’d literally be in the same exact spot. But narratively armor did something and weapons would feel deadlier.
-
A general aside: There's been a lot of discussion of game balance when it comes to player builds vs. what a GM needs to do to challenge them. There are many different play styles and preferences. All of them are valid. The golden rule for everyone having fun is know your audience.
Some players optimize builds in the hopes the GM will rise to the "challenge" of challenging them. Some players optimize because the act of optimizing is an integral part of their fun, and have no preference from there how hard or little of a challenge they receive so long as the game is fun (I fall into this category). Combats don't have to be any harder or easier than your group enjoys. Likewise, if you are the sort of GM that can't enjoy running a game without challenging your players, also totally fine. Host for players who only optimize a little, don't optimize at all, or are content not doing so to be part of the game.
And as far as how resilient out the gate, using Missions standards you can come out the door with heavy mil spec (restricted gear) with R6 grey mana integration as a gnome with body 4, intuition 5, logic 6, willpower 6 who is damn near immune to anything another starting runner could hope to throw at it (23H armor and +10 dice vs. magic in addition to the standard resistance roll for the spell in question), and "fights" by casually walking up to enemies and pulling the pin on a held grenade that can't hurt him so there is zero chance of missing the target area.
Now is that smart? Probably not. My point is that both players and GMs knowing their audience is more valuable what can or cannot be done with characters.
Street sams will easily reach 6 or 9 more soak depending on bioware vs cyberware, with armor and soak ware.
And should, if not even more. Combat is that archetype's function. They should be the most resilient vs. mundane attacks.
At the point armor truly becomes more relavent as fashion then to soak the simulationist break is just too high.
For sure. I feel the same way about the nonsensical str not effecting melee weapons issue.
some would say it's functionally irrelevant.
Unless the actual Edge-use chart comes to differ the one I have seen, this is my stance on the matter.
I do have my hopes about each of these. 1: If you're getting outnumbered 2 or 3 to one, you SHOULD be in a world of trouble... so I'm provisionally ok with this still.
If our game was based upon realistic (to our reality) standards, I couldn't agree more. But despite being more of a cyberpunk setting, it is still very much high fantasy in power levels in my opinion and experience. So when that is taken into consideration, it is hard for me to not disagree.
In 6e: Soak pools are TINY in comparison, but DVs are also somewhat lower... just not AS reduced from 5e as soak pools were.
I think most folks get that. The concern (or mine at least) is that from what I have seen so far, the numbers have not been reduced in balanced proportion to one another.
But being incapable of taking out the ganger in leather or instantly subdue the wage slave you are extracting makes you seem pathetic not a cybered up combat monster or magically powered martial artist.
I hadn't even considered that, but very much this ^.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
That is quite disconcerting. Just remember that time you knew what the audience wanted more than the person calling the shots. Then take their job!? Now we're shadowrunning in real life!
Would make a nice optional houserule, dunno what to do with weapon damage though... Boost all with 3? But then again, given how people complain about lethality already, not sure if it'd be a good idea.
I personally don't mind things being more lethal. I'd just like them to retain some ammount of common sense. When I wear armor, it will help to stop me from being injured. When the troll bodybuilder wields the hammer, it will hit strike much harder than the pareplegic gnome. . .
-
pity
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
-
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
Well send whoever shot you down and let us have crack at them. To me that suggestion is reasonable. It’s way less soak then 5e but At least armor has meaning.
The soak with body thing maybe the trend in the industry See Scion 2.0 but SR armor has always been important and it would be tragic for that to no longer be the case.
Even if lot only had one auto soak it would still be better then what is currently been released.
-
Bump all ranged damage by 3 do the armor as I suggested. Add 1/2 strength round down to melee weapon damage.
-
Bump all ranged damage by 3 do the armor as I suggested. Add 1/2 strength round down to melee weapon damage.
that would certainly seem sensible given what's been released publicly so far.
I guess we'll have to wait for release to see if that's workable...
-
Even without a dodge you need a 24 dice pool to do it on average. Maybe less with a called shot. Again you could have had the same soak end result with armor.
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
...+1
-
pity
Something simple based on coverage of the armor. 1 auto soak for vests. 2 auto soak for coats. 3 auto soak for full clothing. 1 bonus auto soak for head coverage. Bump damage accordingly. End result for people in armor is the prett much the same as 6eis displaying. But your gun actually has a chance of taking out someone who isn’t armored in one shot. So no rocket tag but your armor does something and your attacks don’t seem pathetic without a massive pool.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
...agreed.
-
I´ve thought about another way to make armor relevant: Add further uses for Edge that cohere with Armor, offering positive effects at a (potentially) better ratio than the standard Edge uses for soak tests.
Example:
- 1 Edge: Replace your Body with your Armor rating for the Soak roll
- 2 Edge: Convert lethal damage up to your Armor rating/2 into Stun damage
- 3 Edge: Add your Armor Rating to the soak roll
- 4 Edge: Add Armor rating/2 as automatik hits to the soak roll
These examples are a bit of a shot in the dark, as I have to see how the ratings will turn out across the board. What´s important here is that the effects should be noticeably better than the standard Edge Effects as long as your armor rating is high enough.
While this approach might not look as elegant as a damage reduction/adjustment at a first glance, I think it has some appeals on its own:
- Less invasive: It stays within the "edgy" design philosophy of SR6 and can easily be patched on. It´s an addition, not a complete remodeling. Thus, this approach may even be a good official fix that can be implemented (f.i. in the upcoming combat rulebook?) without looking too much like backpedaling. Admitting that an idea didn´t work isn´t
Catalyst´s pretty much any game developers strong suit these days :P - Narrative play: Using Edge in this way offers an opportunity to describe those lucky moments where the bullet goes straight in the padding, bounces of the helmet etc. Out of Edge, and you are out of luck - the attack goes all the way through, or the shooter even scores a vital shot. If you can outmaneuver and "out-edge" the tanky Troll, you can line up the good shots that ignore armor.
- Tough decisions: AFAWK, you can use Edge (including that one point of Edge you may have earned for a good defense rating) only once per Attack: Either for the defense test or for the soak test. But this is mostly a no-brainer: Of course, you will want to use the Edge on the defense test - that way, you increase your chance of not only reducing the damage, but even negating it entirely. However, with these additional Edge uses, it´s an actual choice whether you use edge in hope to dodge the attack entirely or if you rather want to rely on armor, which offers a better ratio.
-
These trend to always try to depend on edge is not a good idea, it's gonna slow things down, if every roll we have stop and have edge discussion. Soak is soak, keep it simple.
-
You've got some neat ideas Finstersang. But when you see 6e stats you'll see you haven't picked a good tree to bark up.
Remember, Armor Rating isn't a thing anymore. Armor provides a bonus to Defense Rating. And the way things are scaled, only at the edges of the bell curve will Body NOT be the biggest contribution to DR... so only on the fringes would replacing Body with the DR bonus from armor be advantageous.
Now a similar idea to what you're contemplating would be to soak with DR instead of Body, it'd be essentially your 3 edge soak idea. But: if you don't increase weapon DVs, it gets way too hard to hurt anyone who's got the edge to spend. If you do increase weapon DVs, you murderize everyone who can't spend the edge. In other words: it'll unbalance the DV to soak pool dynamic that basically works as-is. (not to mention, such a change would make spending edge on anything BUT a soak roll a mistake)
I also like the basic idea of getting some auto-soak from armor. But as Banshee said, it was explicitly ruled out by the powers that be. My assumption is the reasoning was it would also upset the DV to Soak Pool balance. But I wasn't part of playtest so I have absolutely no idea.
-
I also like the basic idea of getting some auto-soak from armor. But as Banshee said, it was explicitly ruled out by the powers that be. My assumption is the reasoning was it would also upset the DV to Soak Pool balance. But I wasn't part of playtest so I have absolutely no idea.
I could think of some less generous ideas as to why it was rejected Stainless, I'd wager those ideas are more accurate than what you posit above.
-
While I suspect the game will be playable I think some core issues will be driving me insane.
1. Armor not adding to soak. The math for how much damage you take on average might end up working but thematically it’s crap.
2. Strength not effecting melee damage values of weapons so a 1 strength dude swings a axe hits just as hard as a 15 strength troll. Yes edge but whether you use edge or not the default should be heavily in 15 strengths favor. What’s insane to me is when moving from 4e to 5e they boosted the defect of strength on dc as it was seen as too weak of an effect in 4e. And they not only reversed course but made it a far far smaller effect than even 4e. I have a hard time articulating how bad I think this is. Though again the math for a functioning mechanically game may actually work. I doubt it since it oddly adds to unarmed damage which makes me think this is some editing error or multiple people working on the same section and not communicating. Still even if the math works, You just have to remove your brain for it thematically work.
3. How hard it will be to kill in one shot with certain weapons. This isn’t a tootsie pop where it takes 3 licks to get to the center. If I’m shooting random unsuspecting unarmored goon with a heavy pistol how many dice do you think you should need to drop them in one shot on average. If you said 24 you’d be right in 6e. Called shot might drop that a couple dice. Edge a couple more but should you need edge to do something that basic? 12 dice should be plenty for something like this. Like almost overkill, padding for a bad roll type thing at 12 dice.
While low base damages are part of the problem a big part is the change since 4e away from damage staging. 1 hit per dv is a smooth bell curve but with high base damage and fixed TNs of 5 hits are never grazing or flesh wounds without ludicrous soak pools. But with low base damage killing someone in one shot is for 30 dice shooters which is just as crazy. Faster scaling of damage either through a reduced fixed TN or more dc per net hit would help this.
Quick example HP base dv 3. If the TN was 4 9 net hits or. 18 die pool vs unsuspecting target would get you to 12 dc-2 for soak to 10. 18vs 24 is an improvement. TN 3 you could get by with 14ish dice. Problem is with a TN change which while I think it does a better job of reinforcing the differences in skill levels is a change that requires more changes like threshold tests etc. Now if every net hit raised your base DV by 2 and you soaked 2 per hit you might see something interesting. 3 base damage you’d need 5 net hits to comfortably kill random 3 body guy. 15 die pool vs 24. Not the 12 I want but much better imo.
Also even with a middling body you might see flesh wounds when a enemy just barely hits you with bigger weapons. The shotgun grazed your shoulder. Base damage 5? 1 net hit to 7. A body 4 gets a lucky roll and 2 hits edges gets 1 more and knocks it down to 1 damage. Now you’d have to change a couple other things like maybe if called shots boost damage by 2dv still you’d have to bump that to 3 or 4.
But I think faster scaling damage is a plus in both directions. It rewards good hits and allows for flesh wounds. It deemphasizes the need for big base dv guns because 1 net hit can make up the difference. Remember 1 net hit is 3 dice so it’s like the difference between amateur and a trained pro. Look at the difference in thresholds tests in 5e each number represents a huge difference in outcome. Damage is piddling in comparison at 1dv per net hit. No where near the 1-4 thresholds of make a tight turn to flip your car and mid air use a crane hook to remove the bomb on the undercarriage or your car.
-
as far as i can divine from the public playtest/ demo armor adds nothing to your defence or soak.
At best it can only contribute 1 edge die (reroll ONE die) per combat turn.
That means you're just as well protected wearing a bikini into combat as an armored jacket, helmet and armored under suit.
Clearly that's nuts.
It's relegating armor to irrelevancy whereas they could have just as easily done something reasonable like you proposed further upthread.
If this core mechanic was so badly bungled i'd be willing to bet there are others just like it in 6e.
-
Agreed. Just trying to come up with a patch that works in the existing system. Auto soak and bumping all dvs is a fix but not one that I can foresee ever being implemented once enough players chime in for the live playtest that is this games launch. Changing one line of each hit increases the DV by 2 is doable. I guess computer games launch in alpha states and patch later so why not pen and paper RPGs.
-
Fixing PDFs is easier than refunding all the hardcopies
-
While I suspect the game will be playable I think some core issues will be driving me insane.
1. Armor not adding to soak. The math for how much damage you take on average might end up working but thematically it’s crap.
2. Strength not effecting melee damage values of weapons so a 1 strength dude swings a axe hits just as hard as a 15 strength troll. Yes edge but whether you use edge or not the default should be heavily in 15 strengths favor. What’s insane to me is when moving from 4e to 5e they boosted the defect of strength on dc as it was seen as too weak of an effect in 4e. And they not only reversed course but made it a far far smaller effect than even 4e. I have a hard time articulating how bad I think this is. Though again the math for a functioning mechanically game may actually work. I doubt it since it oddly adds to unarmed damage which makes me think this is some editing error or multiple people working on the same section and not communicating. Still even if the math works, You just have to remove your brain for it thematically work.
3. How hard it will be to kill in one shot with certain weapons. This isn’t a tootsie pop where it takes 3 licks to get to the center. If I’m shooting random unsuspecting unarmored goon with a heavy pistol how many dice do you think you should need to drop them in one shot on average. If you said 24 you’d be right in 6e. Called shot might drop that a couple dice. Edge a couple more but should you need edge to do something that basic? 12 dice should be plenty for something like this. Like almost overkill, padding for a bad roll type thing at 12 dice.
While low base damages are part of the problem a big part is the change since 4e away from damage staging. 1 hit per dv is a smooth bell curve but with high base damage and fixed TNs of 5 hits are never grazing or flesh wounds without ludicrous soak pools. But with low base damage killing someone in one shot is for 30 dice shooters which is just as crazy. Faster scaling of damage either through a reduced fixed TN or more dc per net hit would help this.
Quick example HP base dv 3. If the TN was 4 9 net hits or. 18 die pool vs unsuspecting target would get you to 12 dc-2 for soak to 10. 18vs 24 is an improvement. TN 3 you could get by with 14ish dice. Problem is with a TN change which while I think it does a better job of reinforcing the differences in skill levels is a change that requires more changes like threshold tests etc. Now if every net hit raised your base DV by 2 and you soaked 2 per hit you might see something interesting. 3 base damage you’d need 5 net hits to comfortably kill random 3 body guy. 15 die pool vs 24. Not the 12 I want but much better imo.
Also even with a middling body you might see flesh wounds when a enemy just barely hits you with bigger weapons. The shotgun grazed your shoulder. Base damage 5? 1 net hit to 7. A body 4 gets a lucky roll and 2 hits edges gets 1 more and knocks it down to 1 damage. Now you’d have to change a couple other things like maybe if called shots boost damage by 2dv still you’d have to bump that to 3 or 4.
But I think faster scaling damage is a plus in both directions. It rewards good hits and allows for flesh wounds. It deemphasizes the need for big base dv guns because 1 net hit can make up the difference. Remember 1 net hit is 3 dice so it’s like the difference between amateur and a trained pro. Look at the difference in thresholds tests in 5e each number represents a huge difference in outcome. Damage is piddling in comparison at 1dv per net hit. No where near the 1-4 thresholds of make a tight turn to flip your car and mid air use a crane hook to remove the bomb on the undercarriage or your car.
Good thinking, maybe I´ll try this if the numbers fit:
- +2 Damage per Net Hit.
- But: Armor is added to the soak roll.
- Edge gain from comparing Attack VS Defense rating stays in
That way, armor is a thing, but quick stealth takedowns as well. Like it ;D
Here´s another idea that revolves more around the flat Attack VS Defense rating comparison:
- No Edge gain from comparing Attack VS Defense rating
- If the Attack rating is +4 higher than the Defense rating, Net Hits add +2 Damage
- If the Defense rating is +4 higher than the Attack rating, Soak is Armor + Body
- You can always choose to soak with Armor or Body (a little concession to low body chars with high armor. It´s still not a good idea to dumpstat body, tho)
In this constellation, Strength also has a bigger meaning for Melee, because the Attack-Defense comparison has a stronger effect.
-
Most of the comments I am seeing here are not making me look forward to a system change. Granted, almost anything has to be better than the current Matrix stuff, but most of my group could not be forced to give a drek. I mean we even joked of playing Android: Netrunner as our Matrix game instead.
-
Good thinking, maybe I´ll try this if the numbers fit:
- +2 Damage per Net Hit.
- But: Armor is added to the soak roll.
- Edge gain from comparing Attack VS Defense rating stays in
That way, armor is a thing, but quick stealth takedowns as well. Like it ;D
Here´s another idea that revolves more around the flat Attack VS Defense rating comparison:
- No Edge gain from comparing Attack VS Defense rating
- If the Attack rating is +4 higher than the Defense rating, Net Hits add +2 Damage
- If the Defense rating is +4 higher than the Attack rating, Soak is Armor + Body
In this constellation, Strength also has a bigger meaning for Melee, because the Attack-Defense comparison has a stronger effect.
I like those idea, things to play with while trying to get this system to fit my group.
-
as far as i can divine from the public playtest/ demo armor adds nothing to your defence or soak.
At best it can only contribute 1 edge die (reroll ONE die) per combat turn.
That means you're just as well protected wearing a bikini into combat as an armored jacket, helmet and armored under suit.
Clearly that's nuts.
It's relegating armor to irrelevancy whereas they could have just as easily done something reasonable like you proposed further upthread.
If this core mechanic was so badly bungled i'd be willing to bet there are others just like it in 6e.
...in agreement here.
About the only armour that sounds like it would actually benefit a character would be a sealed suit with its own life support (like an MCT EE suit, Chemseal FBA, Chemsealed Milspec, diving suit or space suit) to protect you from environmental hazards and toxins. Just hope it isn't punctured in a firefight or by that 1 DV knife.
-
Most of the comments I am seeing here are not making me look forward to a system change. Granted, almost anything has to be better than the current Matrix stuff, but most of my group could not be forced to give a drek. I mean we even joked of playing Android: Netrunner as our Matrix game instead.
I have also considered that a couple times. Just didn’t know the game well enough to make it work.
-
Been thinking a lot about armor changes and been listening to all actual plays.
This may have been suggested before and if so just ignore this post.
How make armor # still mean something and not add math or change new mechanics.
If DR is higher then AR then make damage stun. This represents stopping power and penetration. Doesn’t change soak roll, Increases survivability and leaves associated mechanics intact.
-
...that sounds reasonable. Similar to how it works in 5E.
Would then give characters more of a reason to have/get better armour.
-
6e fiction is going to be lit. Armor doing nothing, 1 strength randos chopping down trolls with combat axes, heavy pistols shots taking 2-3 shots from trained experts to drop someone who can’t move.
While a joke, the intent is to show how the rules should help illustrate the setting and the setting should be seen in the rules. From what I’ve seen I’m not getting that here.
-
These trend to always try to depend on edge is not a good idea, it's gonna slow things down, if every roll we have stop and have edge discussion. Soak is soak, keep it simple.
This.
Look, I hate to be 'that guy', but there is a damn reason why Dungeons and Dragons is the most popular, best selling tabletop RPG on the freaking planet. Part of that reason is that it has very little back and forth in the numbers while you're in play. You have your AC, and the attacker has their hit modifier. They roll a d20, and if they tie or better, you get hit. Circumstance modifiers are generally rare, and are always flat things, like '-2 to attack rolls' or '50% miss chance'. Once you get past character generation, everything more or less abides by the KISS principle. Sure, you may have to make a series of rolls to try and grapple someone or bull rush them off a cliff, but they're all basic things that you know the modifiers for beforehand. Sure, armor doesn't reduce your damage taken, unless you have special mods on it, but it makes you harder to hit, which is good.
Even 'crunchier' systems like HERO System follow this basic idea. Yes, you have more options (martial arts maneuvers, for instance), but it still boils down to Roll 3d6, compare your modified OCV to their modified DCV, and if it hits, you roll damage. None of this constantly changing Edge crap. And Armor damn sure helps you resist damage, and sometimes keeps you from being hit, depending on what you have.
6e fiction is going to be lit. Armor doing nothing, 1 strength randos chopping down trolls with combat axes, heavy pistols shots taking 2-3 shots from trained experts to drop someone who can’t move.
While a joke, the intent is to show how the rules should help illustrate the setting and the setting should be seen in the rules. From what I’ve seen I’m not getting that here.
It feels like Catalyst subcontracted 6E to the team from Fallout 76.
-
Edge will slow things down for sure but also core systems should not work based on a mechanic that will get variable amounts of use per table. Some tables may dive in and use it all the time, constantly adding and subtracting etc other tables may use it at most once per fight. Armor might function for group one(though I doubt it) but be totally broken for group two. It’s why you shouldn’t get magic to work based on background count. It needs to work on its own you can’t depend on the GM to use it the right amount to balance a broken rule. Edge is like that but tied to every system in the game.
General rule if you think you came up with a clever gimmick that can be subbed in to make everything work, you are wrong. The new edge mechanic might be amazing, but it should be an amazing edge mechanic. Not an amazing edge mechanic, conditional modifier mechanic, armor mechanic, melee damage mechanic etc.
-
6e fiction is going to be lit. Armor doing nothing, 1 strength randos chopping down trolls with combat axes, heavy pistols shots taking 2-3 shots from trained experts to drop someone who can’t move.
Just like my Japanese animes.
Speaking of Japanese animes, how do the vehicle rules look for 6e? If a bunch of riggers can't re-enact the events of Initial D in Ares Roadmasters while the streetsams and physads hold a contest to see who can do the best Akira bike slide, then what's even the point?
-
6e fiction is going to be lit. Armor doing nothing, 1 strength randos chopping down trolls with combat axes, heavy pistols shots taking 2-3 shots from trained experts to drop someone who can’t move.
Just like my Japanese animes.
Speaking of Japanese animes, how do the vehicle rules look for 6e? If a bunch of riggers can't re-enact the events of Initial D in Ares Roadmasters while the streetsams and physads hold a contest to see who can do the best Akira bike slide, then what's even the point?
I love anime. I want a player to take a sea based totem so I can make a one piece themed astral quests. But anime and shadowrun aren’t always the same. But anime can be fairly pink Mohawk shooting long range in darkness and rain no dice pool penalty but your enemy got 1 point of edge. Woo. These systems need to work on their own with edge enhancing it not replacing it. Like if combat was a threshold system. 1+hits on dodge or hit. Darkness and other conditions adds to threshold. Edge can be used to cancel penalties. Edge supports the system then it does it replace it.
-
"Just like my Japanese animes" is a joke, chummer. However, I am serious about wanting to know what vehicle rules look like in 6e.
-
Been thinking a lot about armor changes and been listening to all actual plays.
This may have been suggested before and if so just ignore this post.
How make armor # still mean something and not add math or change new mechanics.
If AR is higher then DR then make damage stun. This represents stopping power and penetration. Doesn’t change soak roll, Increases survivability and leaves associated mechanics intact.
I am sure you meant if DR is higher than AR, but I digress. I like this. I would trigger it the same as edge and say if the defender earns edge (4 DR over AR) they also convert physical damage to stun, but this is a really simple elegant adjustment that I am sure I will be stealing for any home games I run.
-
"Just like my Japanese animes" is a joke, chummer. However, I am serious about wanting to know what vehicle rules look like in 6e.
QSR is being released currently at Origins and the Rigging rules are sampled in them. They seem pretty strat forward so far. One thing I was not sure if I will like or not is that firing a vehicle mounted weapon seems to use Engineering. It doesn't seem logical to me but I will get used to it.
-
However, I am serious about wanting to know what vehicle rules look like in 6e.
There aren't abstract speed values anymore. So, kinda like 4e stats.
Also: 6e defines what attributes you use. Unlike 5e where we still don't have definitive answers for what attributes riggers rig with.
-
Been thinking a lot about armor changes and been listening to all actual plays.
This may have been suggested before and if so just ignore this post.
How make armor # still mean something and not add math or change new mechanics.
If AR is higher then DR then make damage stun. This represents stopping power and penetration. Doesn’t change soak roll, Increases survivability and leaves associated mechanics intact.
I am sure you meant if DR is higher than AR, but I digress. I like this. I would trigger it the same as edge and say if the defender earns edge (4 DR over AR) they also convert physical damage to stun, but this is a really simple elegant adjustment that I am sure I will be stealing for any home games I run.
Fixed that, was mixing my abbreviations with another game. But yes was exactly what I meant.
-
"Just like my Japanese animes" is a joke, chummer. However, I am serious about wanting to know what vehicle rules look like in 6e.
Might have been a joke but it seems to be a fairly solid comparison.
-
Been thinking a lot about armor changes and been listening to all actual plays.
This may have been suggested before and if so just ignore this post.
How make armor # still mean something and not add math or change new mechanics.
If DR is higher then AR then make damage stun. This represents stopping power and penetration. Doesn’t change soak roll, Increases survivability and leaves associated mechanics intact.
I like!
So, time for me to start compiling a list of possible SR6 houserules:
- DR > AR, damage automatically becomes Stun only
Makes armor more useful for spreading out damage
- 1/2/+1 soak autohit from torso/body/helmetORshield, +1/2/3/4 DV on small arms/heavy/rifles/assault cannons
aka FBA vs Rifles is same, but the really big stuff still hurts extra, while small toys are still a big threat if you're not fully suited up
(I'm not including suggestions that decrease Edge gain, because that too heavily nerfs Street Sams without good reason. If you don't want to play the new Edge game, honestly SR5 is a better idea.)
-
I’m curious to see how much edge took over. At least some modifiers are replaced by it reportedly. But like if I’m getting shot at at long range, in darkness, in hurricane force winds 1 or even 2 edge doesn’t seem to capture the feel of the difficulty of that shot.
-
I’m curious to see how much edge took over. At least some modifiers are replaced by it reportedly. But like if I’m getting shot at at long range, in darkness, in hurricane force winds 1 or even 2 edge doesn’t seem to capture the feel of the difficulty of that shot.
From what I have seen and my knowledge of the RAR.
You would get a total of +2 edge, as that is the most you can gain in a turn.
And since there are no other modifiers in the game (From what I have heard) that would be it.
-
I’m curious to see how much edge took over. At least some modifiers are replaced by it reportedly. But like if I’m getting shot at at long range, in darkness, in hurricane force winds 1 or even 2 edge doesn’t seem to capture the feel of the difficulty of that shot.
From what I have seen and my knowledge of the RAR.
You would get a total of +2 edge, as that is the most you can gain in a turn.
And since there are no other modifiers in the game (From what I have heard) that would be it.
So impossible shots are routine not just for superhuman shooters but average normal human ones.
What exactly was this trying to fix. You are giving edge so you are on some level tracking situational modifiers. I guess it’s a bit easier than remembering all the die pool modifiers is it -6 at this range or -4 etc. but I’d think there are a ton of ways to fix that without totally removing it.
-
...
So, time for me to start compiling a list of possible SR6 houserules:
...
Something I could see as a house rule (or perhaps as an official rule in the 6e version of Run & Gun) is a rule governing one shot kills on unsuspecting targets. Something along the lines of so long as the target is not getting any dodge at all (e.g. surprised, snuck up on, etc) the attacker can attempt a disabling shot against a static threshold that simply kills/subdues the target based on whether the damage was P or S. Pro: it's great for those "sneak up behind them and twist his head, silently snapping his neck in an instant" kills you see heroes do in movies all the time. Con: players would absolutely hate seeing the rule being used by NPCs on their PCs.
-
You are correct.
They sacrificed any semblance of a connection to reality for simplicity.
Which they then cocked up with the convoluted edge mechanic.
It’s really nuts.
6e is a boardless board game.
I’m curious to see how much edge took over. At least some modifiers are replaced by it reportedly. But like if I’m getting shot at at long range, in darkness, in hurricane force winds 1 or even 2 edge doesn’t seem to capture the feel of the difficulty of that shot.
From what I have seen and my knowledge of the RAR.
You would get a total of +2 edge, as that is the most you can gain in a turn.
And since there are no other modifiers in the game (From what I have heard) that would be it.
So impossible shots are routine not just for superhuman shooters but average normal human ones.
What exactly was this trying to fix. You are giving edge so you are on some level tracking situational modifiers. I guess it’s a bit easier than remembering all the die pool modifiers is it -6 at this range or -4 etc. but I’d think there are a ton of ways to fix that without totally removing it.
-
Bump all ranged damage by 3 do the armor as I suggested. Add 1/2 strength round down to melee weapon damage.
What about 1/2 strength rounded down using one hand, and straight strength if using the weapon 2-handed? It would make that troll with a battleaxe waaay scarier to get into combat with.
-
Bump all ranged damage by 3 do the armor as I suggested. Add 1/2 strength round down to melee weapon damage.
What about 1/2 strength rounded down using one hand, and straight strength if using the weapon 2-handed? It would make that troll with a battleaxe waaay scarier to get into combat with.
Assault cannons are 6dv 9dv under my proposed house rule. With 1/2 strength trolls out do that but not ludicrously. Full strength damage gets in the 20dv range which just breaks the game.
Personally the more I think about it my fixes will be 2dv per net hit to damage and armor as I outlined above or it just adds to soak. Have it fiddle with it. For melee just change the attack stat to strength and give unarmed a base damage of 1.
I’ll probably add modifiers back into the game adding edge on top of that instead of foolishly replacing them. But instead of a dice pool change make it a threshold change. You need a hit to hit. Which does base weapon damage. Net hits increase damage. Have 2-3 sections of modifiers each with 2 levels. Each applicable mod adds to the threshold by their level. So like poor lighting might be 1, blind fire 2, rain 1 a big storm 2. Poor light in rain would be a total of 2 so your threshold to hit a unmoving target is 3’ their defense if a moving target adds to that threshold. Gain edge as above. Edge on attacks can cancel penalties 1 per.
That way it’s still pretty simple your dice pool doesn’t change just the number of hits needed. No real chart is needed it’s a simple calculation partial problems 1 massive problems 2 3 categories visibility, range(medium, long), environmentals. So like long range, blind fire, in storm level winds just to hit an unaware target its 7 hits. Usually it’s just range and visibility but crap weather sometimes is in the story.
On phone assume errors.
-
Bump all ranged damage by 3 do the armor as I suggested. Add 1/2 strength round down to melee weapon damage.
What about 1/2 strength rounded down using one hand, and straight strength if using the weapon 2-handed? It would make that troll with a battleaxe waaay scarier to get into combat with.
If the biggest guns do like 7P damage, which might be 11P under the houserule I wrote up (with guns getting small increases for small guns because people are complaining about lethality, so boosting small guns like crazy will make it worse), a Troll being able to do X+14 is incredibly OP.
-
Remember when D&D decided to simplify the system, over-corrected, and gave us 4th edition?
Here's hoping Shadowrun 7th edition finds the balance.
(I'm an old and jaded gamer, my snark is born from experience.)
Must be an old jaded gamer thing, I kind of feel the same way, but am trying to reserve judgement.
From the Critical Action/Shadow Network streams, it feels like they're trying to morph into something similar to the engine Modiphius uses for Star Trek Adventures...Edge = Momentum, system is quick and abstract, etc.
This system works really well for STA, but STA is very much about simulating an episode of a Science Fiction show, vs actual Science Fiction, if that makes any sense. There's very little crunch. SR has always been fairly crunchy, and my initial reaction is somewhat indignant, I must confess.
The streams showed the players having similar reactions, then gradually coming to like it -- but after six hours or so not really groking/liking things like the Armor rules.
Edge may prove interesting. I never really played Edge Monkey characters, but Momentum in STA does make for very dynamic and interesting play, and this looks similar. Things like the Armor/Melee changes made an initial impression like fingernails on a chalkboard, so I'll have to wait and see if how I understand them is how they really are going to work.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I agree that edge is intended to be momentum like, but how it’s generated and how it interacts with a the groups seems to have gotten confused. At least with how the system has been explained to date.
-
Remember when D&D decided to simplify the system, over-corrected, and gave us 4th edition?
Here's hoping Shadowrun 7th edition finds the balance.
(I'm an old and jaded gamer, my snark is born from experience.)
Must be an old jaded gamer thing, I kind of feel the same way, but am trying to reserve judgement.
From the Critical Action/Shadow Network streams, it feels like they're trying to morph into something similar to the engine Modiphius uses for Star Trek Adventures...Edge = Momentum, system is quick and abstract, etc.
This system works really well for STA, but STA is very much about simulating an episode of a Science Fiction show, vs actual Science Fiction, if that makes any sense. There's very little crunch. SR has always been fairly crunchy, and my initial reaction is somewhat indignant, I must confess.
The streams showed the players having similar reactions, then gradually coming to like it -- but after six hours or so not really groking/liking things like the Armor rules.
Edge may prove interesting. I never really played Edge Monkey characters, but Momentum in STA does make for very dynamic and interesting play, and this looks similar. Things like the Armor/Melee changes made an initial impression like fingernails on a chalkboard, so I'll have to wait and see if how I understand them is how they really are going to work.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
Yet that's a smart move, imitating a company that has a history of lie to and pissing off its fans :o.
Anyway, it seems to me as has been said before that the writes fell into the old trap of trying to bring in new players by streamlining (industry talk for simplifying) their game.
This has always turned out to be a bad idea, but I hope it's not the last nail in the coffin for the game because it would be sad for Shadowrun to go out on the wimpier that is 6th.
-
These are the QSR which we're seeing examples of. They are pretty much guaranteed to be a simplified subset of the full rules. Not sure how much stock I can put in critiques on complexity until the full rules become available. Then again IMO 5th ED was a horribly a over complicated mess simply for the sake of being complex.
-
I agree that edge is intended to be momentum like, but how it’s generated and how it interacts with a the groups seems to have gotten confused. At least with how the system has been explained to date.
Momentum at least sounds more like what this mechanic does than edge. Never played a momentum system before so I can’t comment on them. But edge as described so fat seems like a cool addition to a compete rule system but a crap way to replace core mechanics. The threshold system is used to represent difficult tasks but edge is used when a person is involved.
So grabbing a handhold in the dark threshold X grabbing a dude in the dark they get 1 edge, but the task is actually no more difficult than doing it in light if they don’t use the edge as defense but now after escaping your hold they are a better shot on some dude unrelated to your scuffle when they use the edge 2 combat turns later. Balancing on a slippery surface threshold 2, spinning side kick on a slippery surface defender gets 1 edge.
-
These are the QSR which we're seeing examples of. They are pretty much guaranteed to be a simplified subset of the full rules. Not sure how much stock I can put in critiques on complexity until the full rules become available. Then again IMO 5th ED was a horribly a over complicated mess simply for the sake of being complex.
Not sure if this was directed at me, If so I am speaking from what I have seen and heard from the play thru on shadowcasters network.
And they are using the full corebook to the best of my knowledge not the beginners box QSR.
-
So There is a question that has been floating around my table for the last couple of games.
Is the Core-rule book still in development/layout or is it done and just waiting to be printed for the august release?
The reason I ask is to find out if there is any chance that the rules will be change before the release or is this what we're going to get?
I understand if this information is under NDA.
-
So There is a question that has been floating around my table for the last couple of games.
Is the Core-rule book still in development/layout or is it done and just waiting to be printed for the august release?
The reason I ask is to find out if there is any chance that the rules will be change before the release or is this what we're going to get?
I understand if this information is under NDA.
"Is 'this' what we're going to get?" is perhaps a trickier question than you realize. NDAs are keeping all the answers everyone wants from being given.
Some things to keep in mind (and that are tangentially relevant to your question):
The QSR has some minor rule divergences from the full CRB for the sake of ease-of-play/demo-ing.
The QSR also has some flat out wrong info. (I saw an egregious error in one of the pics shared in the twitter link covering a QSR unboxing in another thread)
The CRB *is* written, but as the Shadowrun Line Developer has said there's already an errata team poring over it. It remains to be seen what specific changes may come about to the CRB via the errata process. But it's already in the works.
-
So There is a question that has been floating around my table for the last couple of games.
Is the Core-rule book still in development/layout or is it done and just waiting to be printed for the august release?
The reason I ask is to find out if there is any chance that the rules will be change before the release or is this what we're going to get?
I understand if this information is under NDA.
"Is 'this' what we're going to get?" is perhaps a trickier question than you realize. NDAs are keeping all the answers everyone wants from being given.
Some things to keep in mind (and that are tangentially relevant to your question):
The QSR has some minor rule divergences from the full CRB for the sake of ease-of-play/demo-ing.
The QSR also has some flat out wrong info. (I saw an egregious error in one of the pics shared in the twitter link covering a QSR unboxing in another thread)
The CRB *is* written, but as the Shadowrun Line Developer has said there's already an errata team poring over it. It remains to be seen what specific changes may come about to the CRB via the errata process. But it's already in the works.
Thank you for the response.
Just to be clear was not asking about the QSR have not seen or read them.
I was asking based on what I had seen and heard on the shadowcaster play thru.
And if this is an accurate or close to accurate version of the corebook rules.
-
I would say mainly accurate.
As with any group, being new with the system made them do some things wrong in the "you shouldn't have done that" tactical meaning, and some other things were done wrong in a "that's not what the rulebook says" sense. Moreso the former than the latter.
-
Yet that's a smart move, imitating a company that has a history of lie to and pissing off its fans :o.
To be fair Tenchi I think that statement could be used to describe pretty much every gaming company in existent at one point or another. (Ok probably not Guardians of Order but we can't all be saints, or that unlucky.)
As to the rest, I have never read 6e CRB and the only fore knowledge of the 6e system I have is what has/is discussed on here or is linked from here.
But lets be honest after reading all that been said on here. It's fairly obvious that 6e is gonna need a lot of work.
Even it's strongest proponents on here, already outlined some the house rules they intend to use to help fix it at their tables, and they have actually read at least some version those rules. So lets all hope the errata team can make 6e playable. Sure it will probably mean whatever printed version makes it out for the first round mass distribution will probably be fairly meaningless. But PDF updates are basically free so just order online, and wait a bit before picking up the dead tree version if you prefer it.
-
Yet that's a smart move, imitating a company that has a history of lie to and pissing off its fans :o.
To be fair Tenchi I think that statement could be used to describe pretty much every gaming company in existent at one point or another. (Ok probably not Guardians of Order but we can't all be saints, or that unlucky.)
I really miss BESM 8), always was a fun game.
As to the rest, I have never read 6e CRB and the only fore knowledge of the 6e system I have is what has/is discussed on here or is linked from here.
But lets be honest after reading all that been said on here. It's fairly obvious that 6e is gonna need a lot of work.
Even it's strongest proponents on here, already outlined some the house rules they intend to use to help fix it at their tables, and they have actually read at least some version those rules. So lets all hope the errata team can make 6e playable. Sure it will probably mean whatever printed version makes it out for the first round mass distribution will probably be fairly meaningless. But PDF updates are basically free so just order online, and wait a bit before picking up the dead tree version if you prefer it.
That's the thing, if the rules need heavy errata just to be playable then there seems to be no point in buying the book.
I would say that with that pushing the release back would be smarter than going to print with that much errata needed, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway got the info I needed so it looks like we are just going to stick with 5th for now.
-
Yet that's a smart move, imitating a company that has a history of lie to and pissing off its fans :o.
To be fair Tenchi I think that statement could be used to describe pretty much every gaming company in existent at one point or another. (Ok probably not Guardians of Order but we can't all be saints, or that unlucky.)
I really miss BESM 8), always was a fun game.
As do I. Everyone lost out when they went down.
That's the thing, if the rules need heavy errata just to be playable then there seems to be no point in buying the book.
I would say that with that pushing the release back would be smarter than going to print with that much errata needed, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway got the info I needed so it looks like we are just going to stick with 5th for now.
From my perspective buying a "book" isn't about buying some pulped up dead tree with ink on it. When we buy a book, these days, we are buying the IP. We are supporting the makers of the book. I personally don't have much faith in 6e CRB at launch, and further the QSR rules make no sense to me. But I expect I will at least buy a pdf copy of the CRB. After that we will simply have to see. If errata can fix it great. If not well, there are other options, sometimes I feel the need to have to step out for an edition. As to pushing it back, I suspect that ship probably already sailed literally, I have no idea what the distribution schedule is but sailing from where ever this is being printed means a good amount of lead time. So if they are releasing at the end of the summer I suspect that first round is probably already printed.
-
While the errata team is working on it I suspect they are mainly looking at typos and straight contradictory rules and not at ways to fix a core system. Once enough players speak up like if they had a sizable diverse playtest we might get optional rules in a first book.
-
You certainly maybe right, that has been the errata teams role to date, and there isn’t really any reason to assume that’s changed I simply hope that won’t be the case.
-
These are the QSR which we're seeing examples of. They are pretty much guaranteed to be a simplified subset of the full rules. Not sure how much stock I can put in critiques on complexity until the full rules become available. Then again IMO 5th ED was a horribly a over complicated mess simply for the sake of being complex.
Not sure if this was directed at me, If so I am speaking from what I have seen and heard from the play thru on shadowcasters network.
And they are using the full corebook to the best of my knowledge not the beginners box QSR.
My statement was directed at no one in particular. Just my impression of many statements I've seen over the last few weeks. ;)
-
You certainly maybe right, that has been the errata teams role to date, and there isn’t really any reason to assume that’s changed I simply hope that won’t be the case.
The edge system is really going to be make or break for a lot of people. It’s very gamist and you kind of have to turn your brain off. Yeah it can be used tactically and with intelligence but if you try to connect it with the game world it just won’t work.
So someone shoots at me with a super difficult shot at no penalty but I got 2 edge and now that I have 4 edge total I can return fire at multiple people in an even more difficult shot with no penalty but I gave them 2 edge. Yeah that makes sense in the world. Mechanically the math might work but it’s very dont look at the man behind the curtain mode, just roll with it and don’t think about it. For some that will be great, for others it will be a wall they can’t get past.
Unless they lose more fans than they gain, im not sure they will see it as a broken mechanic that needs fixing with errata.
-
Part of the issue is, where limit squashed the bell curve in 5e, 6e appears to have all the same pool issues as 5e had but lacks tools to Help address them. 2 edge as a limit is kinda odd but if your using it in every roll well there in lies problems, unless per-turn means something more like per roll then you’re in something of a weird situation.
-
You certainly maybe right, that has been the errata teams role to date, and there isn’t really any reason to assume that’s changed I simply hope that won’t be the case.
IMHO
To put it into gaming terms.
CGLs is pulling a Fallout 76, and want you to buy an incomplete game with known issues while they slowly build it into a playable game.
Or to use computer terms, they are like Microsoft putting out a Alpha version of their software, letting the users find and fix the bugs (Errata team) then putting out a finished version that they did not have to work on.
-
You certainly maybe right, that has been the errata teams role to date, and there isn’t really any reason to assume that’s changed I simply hope that won’t be the case.
IMHO
To put it into gaming terms.
CGLs is pulling a Fallout 76, and want you to buy an incomplete game with known issues while they slowly build it into a playable game.
Or to use computer terms, they are like Microsoft putting out a Alpha version of their software, letting the users find and fix the bugs (Errata team) then putting out a finished version that they did not have to work on.
I kind of hope so actually. Because then at least they recognize the issue.
-
Have we seen how area of effect work in 6e yet? I felt 5es way of no defense test just soak and you could interrupt and move out of the way vs all but grenade launcher attacks. The interrupt made no sense to me. Why can’t I interrupt and move away from a thrown dagger or arrow. Not extra dice I just move 1 meter left and now it misses. Also with air bursts exactly how far are you moving in the 1ish second it’s flying at you.
On top of that the rule reinforced the idea that your defense test was you actually dodging bullets and not just moving defensively, there are ways to minimize the damage of explosions which a defense test would reflect.
Additionally grenades had absurd damage turning something that deadly into just a soak test was just bad design especially since the run away maneuver came later in a supplement.
-
I'm mystified how they went so wrong with so many aspects of this. I think this is going to be the edition i skip. Lets hope 7th comes along quickly.
-
Looks like the powers that be are getting leaned on concerning 6e.
I suspect what we are seeing on 6e is the result of a couple trends in the industry. The first is the 5e D&D thing, like it or dislike it D&D is still the 500lb gorilla of ttrpgs. 5e D&D has become hugely popular, if you keep an eye on trend across game support sites, you will notice the huge majority have become over run with many home brew 5e variants. If you watch things like drivethrurpg you will see some their all time best sellers have become Dmguild products. 5e’s most visible change is simplification. Simplified everything. Certainly 6e simplification trend is probably related to that. Another trend we are seeing is momentum, i first recall it from ether exalted or Scion recent editions. But I believe is several other IPs. Momentum makes thing more interesting as you build up as a result of failure, yours or your parties. I think the new edge incarnation may relate to that. Now I easily be wrong on that score, momentum and edge are generated in very different ways and do very different things. I thought edge might be like proficiency bonus at first but as it doesn’t scale and it’s not really additive I think I was wrong there.
That’s my theory on how we got here. I have no reasonable explanation on the QSR thing.
-
No one is leaning on me or other moderators, I'm pointing out the ToS on the boards because I don't want this to turn into Dumpshock.
-
The only thing simple in 5e D&d is the proficiency bonus being universal. Spells, powers, multi classing etc keep it fairly complex. D&D is the big dog because it’s D&D.
But yes there is a trend toward simplification. And yes edge looks like a mechanic to represent being on a roll or having momentum. None of which explains armor not soaking, strength not adding to the DV of melee weapons. It does explains how they handled situational modifiers in combat even if it was a bad choice.
-
All that last is simplification. I think it’s not
Particularly well done simplification, but it eliminates variables, and that to someone’s mind is simplification.
Sure spell casting in 5e is strong but if you compare the casting action in 5th vs the casting action in pathfinder, and it’s way simpler.
-
All that last is simplification. I think it’s not
Particularly well done simplification, but it eliminates variables, and that to someone’s mind is simplification.
Sure spell casting in 5e is strong but if you compare the casting action in 5th vs the casting action in pathfinder, and it’s way simpler.
I seriously can’t understand a thought process in design where the variable armor+body for soak needs simplification while also adding armor+body= defense rating. In fact for soak pool being the same as your defense rating would be simpler. Or thinking strength effecting unarmed damage but not melee damage simplifies things. That may have been a motivator but I suspect there were other reasons. Bad reasons but other than simplification reasons.
I get it to some degree with situational modifiers in that people like to roll the same pool size each time I think. But there are better ways to deal with that than this edge mechanic imo.
-
All that last is simplification. I think it’s not
Particularly well done simplification, but it eliminates variables, and that to someone’s mind is simplification.
Sure spell casting in 5e is strong but if you compare the casting action in 5th vs the casting action in pathfinder, and it’s way simpler.
I seriously can’t understand a thought process in design where the variable armor+body for soak needs simplification while also adding armor+body= defense rating. In fact for soak pool being the same as your defense rating would be simpler. Or thinking strength effecting unarmed damage but not melee damage simplifies things. That may have been a motivator but I suspect there were other reasons. Bad reasons but other than simplification reasons.
I get it to some degree with situational modifiers in that people like to roll the same pool size each time I think. But there are better ways to deal with that than this edge mechanic imo.
I don't think removing armor from soak was done in the name of simplification.
It's pretty clear (not that I know for sure, I wasn't part of playtest) that the size of the soak pools being made smaller was necessary because there was a strategic design goal made that weapons will have smaller DV values. You can't be rolling 5e size soak pools against the DVs in 6e.
-
I generally approve of the smaller soak pool as a motivator. Since it was absurd in 5e and not just the extremes. A fairly basic character, armor jacket+mask+4 body rolled 18 dice. And so I think that’s part of the reason. But with armor being listed like at 3 for a vest I think they had the covered already.
The lower damage base I mostly agree with as well since absurd damage guns had a lot of negative setting effects with the environment, attacks on animals, vehicles etc. but they need a better system in getting the damage up on a good hit. 3 base damage is great, kind of what I’d expect from a grazing hit from a pistol. But needing 7+ hits for a kill shot is extreme. If I need 3 dice per dv I’m really motivated to bump that base dv as much as possible. I’d like pistols to be a thing again but I don’t think it will happen this edition. Too much work for a kill shot.
-
I don't think removing armor from soak was done in the name of simplification.
It's pretty clear (not that I know for sure, I wasn't part of playtest) that the size of the soak pools being made smaller was necessary because there was a strategic design goal made that weapons will have smaller DV values. You can't be rolling 5e size soak pools against the DVs in 6e.
Yes but the weapons damage change was simplification (We know this b/c melee weapons suddenly don't do what they used to), so armor there for armor is changes are also based upon a change for simplification as well.
-
I don't think removing armor from soak was done in the name of simplification.
It's pretty clear (not that I know for sure, I wasn't part of playtest) that the size of the soak pools being made smaller was necessary because there was a strategic design goal made that weapons will have smaller DV values. You can't be rolling 5e size soak pools against the DVs in 6e.
Yes but the weapons damage change was simplification (We know this b/c melee weapons suddenly don't do what they used to), so armor there for armor is changes are also based upon a change for simplification as well.
While its possible that is part of their motivation, I just can't see how they would think that strength helping unarmed but not melee damage is easier. As that seems more complicated to me at least. Easy is using the same rules across the board.
My guess is once they committed to no soak from armor they were forced into a box with max damage for melee damage. The range is probably the same as other editions 1-5 just not +strength, if they added strength the damage would be out of the scale for what just body can deal with. Even 1/2 strength would put trolls well past assault cannons, heavy machine guns etc in damage, maybe even rocket launchers etc. And that is non augmented trolls, just strong ones. If they had thought for one second that agility doesn't have to handle every physical thing in the universe and actually makes less sense for close combat skills and put strength as the linked attribute it actually would have worked. Set unarmed damage at 1 stun, skeletons at 1,2,3 physical, knives 1, hatchets 2, swords 3, big swords 4, combat axe 5. Sticking with agility as the linked stat was a epic fail. I don't have words to describe how poorly thought out it was.
-
As to Unarmed i guess there are some cows so sacred they just have to be left alone?
But I for one look forward to seeing max body min str trolls running around.
Every version of SR has had issues. I agree that I think 6e looks like it's gonna lots of work.
But lets be honest drone swarms are still basically legal in 5e.
-
Something I saw over in a FB group, which adds a fresh perspective on the discussions had here:
A review of the 6e QSR (https://www.geeksagogo.com/single-post/2019/06/21/Shadowrun-6th-World-Beginner-Box-Reviewed--A-Great-Start-for-a-New-Edition?fbclid=IwAR0QeKyYAP1y14aqZirZwxG0pwiSaF7sGIntGdWRJz-tvdXngxr-qQTPrv4).
-
As to Unarmed i guess there are some cows so sacred they just have to be left alone?
But I for one look forward to seeing max body min str trolls running around.
Every version of SR has had issues. I agree that I think 6e looks like it's gonna lots of work.
But lets be honest drone swarms are still basically legal in 5e.
Yeah. I guess I prefer when my issues are more a ask the players not to break the game style instead of the core rules impacting the feel of the setting in a negative way.
-
Something I saw over in a FB group, which adds a fresh perspective on the discussions had here:
A review of the 6e QSR (https://www.geeksagogo.com/single-post/2019/06/21/Shadowrun-6th-World-Beginner-Box-Reviewed--A-Great-Start-for-a-New-Edition?fbclid=IwAR0QeKyYAP1y14aqZirZwxG0pwiSaF7sGIntGdWRJz-tvdXngxr-qQTPrv4).
A nice short review. It doesn't address the mistakes on some cards, or the likely-significantly-different-in-core for some mechanics, but it judges it fairly on what it's doing.
-
Looks like the powers that be are getting leaned on concerning 6e.
I suspect what we are seeing on 6e is the result of a couple trends in the industry. The first is the 5e D&D thing, like it or dislike it D&D is still the 500lb gorilla of ttrpgs. 5e D&D has become hugely popular, if you keep an eye on trend across game support sites, you will notice the huge majority have become over run with many home brew 5e variants. If you watch things like drivethrurpg you will see some their all time best sellers have become Dmguild products. 5e’s most visible change is simplification. Simplified everything. Certainly 6e simplification trend is probably related to that. Another trend we are seeing is momentum, i first recall it from ether exalted or Scion recent editions. But I believe is several other IPs. Momentum makes thing more interesting as you build up as a result of failure, yours or your parties. I think the new edge incarnation may relate to that. Now I easily be wrong on that score, momentum and edge are generated in very different ways and do very different things. I thought edge might be like proficiency bonus at first but as it doesn’t scale and it’s not really additive I think I was wrong there.
That’s my theory on how we got here. I have no reasonable explanation on the QSR thing.
I think you're on the right track with these thoughts. Certainly, I've seeing a lot of the same with many games.
Trouble is, for me, I don't like simplification, after a certain point. I want mechanical depth and simulation in games, to an extent. As for the momentum-like stuff, I get it, but it's just too "gamist" for my tastes. It just breaks my suspension of disbelief and desire for an internaly consistent world, which I want for my immersion in it.
I guess, as long as the winds don't change I the industry, I can't expect many games with systems I actually like.
It'd be interesting to see, if this will lead to something, in time, like the OSR renaissance, where people would want to go back to the classic-style "simulationist" games, but with improved and polished math and cutting out the chaff.
-
Yeah i'm with you PMark, I like my games crunchy.
Crunch can work with simplification if you carefully consider mechanics and internal consistency and logic.
imho 6e is an unfortunate overreaction to 5e's flaws that has resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.
I suspect the dev process got hijacked by someone burning their hand on 5e development and the crap-show that was 5e's matrix and rigger subsystems that only got worse as more crap was bolted on over time without any clear design goals or purpose.
They should have kicked off 6e's dev process with a huge mea culpa and reach out to the player community to find out what they liked, didn't like and what worked and didn't work.
Instead they worked in secret with minimal outside input. Looking at what resulted it's clear there was an echo chamber of self-reinforcing feedback that cut 6e off from what shadowrun has traditionally been.
And now we have armor that doesn't stop bullets any better than a bikini, melee attack that don't factor in strength at all, etc.
So much opportunity lost here to really transform srun into something awesome.
Just sad all round really.
-
Yeah. Maybe coordinating. 250,000 person playtest like path finder was beyond their scope. But a secret tiny one was just a terrible idea.
-
Yeah, well it looks like for me another system I love, Pathfinder, is also going with over simplified system, aka PF2. I looked at the playtest and out side of a few minor parts, thought it was crap. Now, SR6 looks liked it jumped on the D&D 5th Ed style, but over simplified as well. Well, that might be two systems I won't be updating with. Luckily, I do like Starfinder.
SR5 is not perfect, but has a lot of things I like and apparently work better than versions in the past, Matrix, Riggers, and Technos not included. Personally, don't mind limits and acc as ways of controlling the crazy dice pools. The high DVs are for the most part countered by the high soak pools. Basic combat is decent, could be better, could also be a lot worse. My real complaint was like of constant feed back and errata for all the errors. Some of those errors should have never happened or at least should have been quickly addressed and had the fixes made easily available.
-
They should have kicked off 6e's dev process with a huge mea culpa and reach out to the player community to find out what they liked, didn't like and what worked and didn't work.
Instead they worked in secret with minimal outside input. Looking at what resulted it's clear there was an echo chamber of self-reinforcing feedback that cut 6e off from what shadowrun has traditionally been.
Mea Culpa or not, the blame game while nice, doesn't really matter. We all want a better system, and there is no doubt that broad play testing, with input from community at large is a good way of to get a functional system. That said I totally agree with you Adzling.
On Starfinder i think it's very close to being a good game, their version of bounded accuracy is to tight, building on the assumption of max possible verses the assumption of average character results in required constant min/maxing, which I dislike. I have looked at the PF2 play test and I think they are moving in the right direction time will tell.
-
Well once we reach December and I've been able to host a few open events with it and convinced some people to join a 2-season campaign, I'll let y'all know what their thoughts on the system are. I know my wife, if I manage to convince her, will love it (the Rigger disasters turned her off Shadowrun entirely, and SR6 is already not making the #1 Rigger mistake of SR5). I also hope she'll enjoy the Matrix, because as a Decker she just went through the motions most of the time. And the Techno players quickly moved on to other characters. So I can't wait to see how those turn out.
-
...(the Rigger disasters turned her off Shadowrun entirely, and SR6 is already not making the #1 Rigger mistake of SR5)...
Out of curiosity, especially since I am looking at a rigger/hacker for 6th edition, what was that mistake made by 5th edition?
-
Contradictions between a few places in the rules that made it impossible to know 100% certain what RAW was for 'Gunnery + X when jumped in or in VR? Agility or Logic?' This in part due to the way Control Device described things, which RAI appeared to be for AR-only but RAW simply was for all Control Device stuff.
As for SR6: Beginner Box literally says "combined with Logic (the jumped-in replacement for Agility" so it appears for jumped-in riggers it's extremely clear how it works now. Praise Saeletra!
Now we'll just have to see how it works for remote control, but at the very least a jumped-in-focus rigger combines with hacking.
-
Out of curiosity, especially since I am looking at a rigger/hacker for 6th edition, what was that mistake made by 5th edition?
There were several major rigger issues in 5e, the skill thing was kinda whatever, most tables just picked one and stuck with it. But the more significant issues, were drones were delicate in 5e (IE with one or two exceptions, there were very easy to kill.) and to make that worse that repair rules were terrible, and very poorly defined. It was effectively cheaper to buy a new drone then repair a broken one for most of the 5e.
Then for driver riggers, the collision rules in 5e were stupidly deadly and made no sense. In 5e your pilot took damage based upon the body of their vehicle. The famous example is a truck driver that struck head on with a motor scooter. The truck driver basically died horribly while the motor scooter driver, would walk away virtually unharmed.
So yeah 5e was not good for riggers.
-
A rigger/hacker combo was so ridiculously hard (excepting a Technorigger route) it wasn't worth doing in 5e.
6e may prove to be easier.
-
No one is leaning on me or other moderators, I'm pointing out the ToS on the boards because I don't want this to turn into Dumpshock.
...but does anyone go there anymore? I signed in a few days ago just to see what take on 6e was there, only to find quite a few threads with the newest response being months up to even a year old.
-
The only thing simple in 5e D&d is the proficiency bonus being universal. Spells, powers, multi classing etc keep it fairly complex. D&D is the big dog because it’s D&D.
But yes there is a trend toward simplification. And yes edge looks like a mechanic to represent being on a roll or having momentum. None of which explains armor not soaking, strength not adding to the DV of melee weapons. It does explains how they handled situational modifiers in combat even if it was a bad choice.
...+1
-
Yeah i'm with you PMark, I like my games crunchy.
Crunch can work with simplification if you carefully consider mechanics and internal consistency and logic.
Exactly. And, I might add, preserves certain core qualities of an established game.
This seems to be failing on many fronts. The simplicity really doesnt seem that greatly reduced, there are some glaring differences to say the least both in performance, bu in character roles and, most importantly 'feel". Thsi edge mechanic jusr looks like a horrible attempt to glom onto a trend and fumbling its execution
Instead they worked in secret with minimal outside input. Looking at what resulted it's clear there was an echo chamber of self-reinforcing feedback that cut 6e off from what shadowrun has traditionally been.
And now we have armor that doesn't stop bullets any better than a bikini, melee attack that don't factor in strength at all, etc.
it does seem there was a terrible disconnect, and a desire to make something they wanted as opposed to what their gaming community was expecting.
I wish there was a giant emergency "stop" button in time to save this edition, but I'm thinking its too late for them to change now.
-
Yeah i'm with you PMark, I like my games crunchy.
Crunch can work with simplification if you carefully consider mechanics and internal consistency and logic.
Exactly. And, I might add, preserves certain core qualities of an established game.
This seems to be failing on many fronts. The simplicity really doesnt seem that greatly reduced, there are some glaring differences to say the least both in performance, bu in character roles and, most importantly 'feel". Thsi edge mechanic jusr looks like a horrible attempt to glom onto a trend and fumbling its execution
Instead they worked in secret with minimal outside input. Looking at what resulted it's clear there was an echo chamber of self-reinforcing feedback that cut 6e off from what shadowrun has traditionally been.
And now we have armor that doesn't stop bullets any better than a bikini, melee attack that don't factor in strength at all, etc.
it does seem there was a terrible disconnect, and a desire to make something they wanted as opposed to what their gaming community was expecting.
I wish there was a giant emergency "stop" button in time to save this edition, but I'm thinking its too late for them to change now.
First, it is never to late to stop/delay a project until it is in the public hands, First rule of good business.
Second is, delays are preferred over a PR nightmare.
Third is, The customer is always right.
Two many companies have forgotten this in the last few years, FFG, Modiphius, Blizzard, Bethesda, etc.
The truth is that until the books are actually printed they exist in a print layout PDF form that with some work can be altered.
This may cause a month or two delay depending on how far along they are but can be done.
So the true question is, are the books already printed.
If not then It would be in CGL best interest to get a full account of what their players want and not just what marketing tells them is trending before they go forward with 6th.
-
I suspect they are already at the printer or printed. Best case they come out with run n gun fast with a ton of fix it rules.
-
A rigger/hacker combo was so ridiculously hard (excepting a Technorigger route) it wasn't worth doing in 5e.
6e may prove to be easier.
I'd like that, there's a few character concepts I'd like to try out. As very basics I'm guessing you 'only' need 4 skills: Piloting, Engineering, Cracking, Electronics. Stealth would be a nice addition. Hopefully Skills B is enough, allowing for Resources A. Reaction, Logic, Intuition, Willpower is definitely MAD though, so even if you were to cut corners with Skills C and Attributes B you'll be forced to take a hit somewhere. I suspect I'd personally sacrifice Willpower, making matrix combat very dangerous. Then just grab Mundane whatever.
(My Social Street Sam concept is far worse off: Close Combat, Firearms, Stealth, Perception, Con, Influence, not even mentioning Athletics. And he was using Attributes A in SR5, which was definitely needed for that MAD build... Logic and Strength were the only possible dumpstats.)
-
A rigger/hacker combo was so ridiculously hard (excepting a Technorigger route) it wasn't worth doing in 5e.
That was one of the two routes I was looking at (the other being cyberware, of course). Unfortunately from talk here on the forums, it seems that the technomancer stuff doesn't come out until the end of the edition now?
-
I suspect they are already at the printer or printed. Best case they come out with run n gun fast with a ton of fix it rules.
When the fix is "dump many of the core rules and most of the gear stats" that's just not going to happen.
-
A rigger/hacker combo was so ridiculously hard (excepting a Technorigger route) it wasn't worth doing in 5e.
That was one of the two routes I was looking at (the other being cyberware, of course). Unfortunately from talk here on the forums, it seems that the technomancer stuff doesn't come out until the end of the edition now?
What they mean is an expanded book with primary focus Technomancers.
To indicate with a VERY rough summary, in SR5 we basically had 3 sets of 'core' books: Core itself, Extended Core, and the extra-detailed stuff. The Extended Core pretty much came out within 2 years and had additional stuff for running/lifestyles/etc, guns, vehicles, magic, hacking (including some TM stuff), that kind of books. Then later on we got books that provided even more options, such as really nasty magic stuff, special TM, etc.
(There's also setting books, adventures and a few 'aimed at specific playstyle' books but let's ignore that for now.)
Data Trails (hacking book) didn't have lots of TM stuff, but it did come with extra Complex Forms, Submersions, info about Resonance Realms and such.
-
A rigger/hacker combo was so ridiculously hard (excepting a Technorigger route) it wasn't worth doing in 5e.
That was one of the two routes I was looking at (the other being cyberware, of course). Unfortunately from talk here on the forums, it seems that the technomancer stuff doesn't come out until the end of the edition now?
What they mean is an expanded book with primary focus Technomancers.
To indicate with a VERY rough summary, in SR5 we basically had 3 sets of 'core' books: Core itself, Extended Core, and the extra-detailed stuff. The Extended Core pretty much came out within 2 years and had additional stuff for running/lifestyles/etc, guns, vehicles, magic, hacking (including some TM stuff), that kind of books. Then later on we got books that provided even more options, such as really nasty magic stuff, special TM, etc.
(There's also setting books, adventures and a few 'aimed at specific playstyle' books but let's ignore that for now.)
Data Trails (hacking book) didn't have lots of TM stuff, but it did come with extra Complex Forms, Submersions, info about Resonance Realms and such.
Ah, Ok.
-
Incidentally, in SR5 the rigger-echo for Technomancers was already in Core. If SR6 doesn't, it can be easily houseruled, but we'll see if it's in Core.
-
Incidentally, in SR5 the rigger-echo for Technomancers was already in Core. If SR6 doesn't, it can be easily houseruled, but we'll see if it's in Core.
What about the stereams though, and what's its name? The Techno version of the magician patron spirit thingies? Were those in there as well?
-
Streams were in the second Matrix book, Kill Code. I'm not experienced with them but from the sound of them they're a bit alike the Adept Ways, which were in the first Magic book, Street Grimoire. Paragons (Mentor Spirits for TMs) were also in Kill Code.
We'll have to wait if they hit in the matrix book, and whenever that hits, but that kind of thing falls under the extra-depth specialization expansion books bring. I wouldn't expect it to be worked out in Core, especially since they went from 480 pages in SR5 to 300 in SR6.
-
But the problem wasn't that we had to wait till Kill Code for important stuff, but that it took them all these years to clarify/change things from Core. Why did we have to wait for a second matrix book to finally be told how technomancers with datajacks work or to get the needlessly cumbersome cross-grid penalties removed?
Had they just answered basic questions and published errata in time, technomancers would be playable without much problems with just the core rules...
It can be done fine, just don't screw up in the first book again.
-
On the bright side, errata team has already been looking at SR6 Core. And I think I heard grids are gone?
-
No one is leaning on me or other moderators, I'm pointing out the ToS on the boards because I don't want this to turn into Dumpshock.
...but does anyone go there anymore? I signed in a few days ago just to see what take on 6e was there, only to find quite a few threads with the newest response being months up to even a year old.
Hence why I don't want this place to end up like that. So much vitriol and trolling caused them to self-implode. The only people that come around to read trolls' comments are other trolls.
-
I suspect they are already at the printer or printed. Best case they come out with run n gun fast with a ton of fix it rules.
When the fix is "dump many of the core rules and most of the gear stats" that's just not going to happen.
The reviews I've read so far sound like they are pretty decent and are sure to attract new players (which is the goal of every game). The only real complaints I'm hearing are printing errors (which is, unfortunately, pretty common), and folks that just don't want anything to change. By the way, if you fall into that group, try BattleTech™, their base rules haven't changed in 35 years. Granted, sneaking into Aztechnology is a lot harder when piloting a 35m tall 'Mech.
-
I’m all for crashing through Aztec’s front doors in a 45 ton Hatchetman mech! Gotta do a proper homage to a long lost runner.
-
I suspect they are already at the printer or printed. Best case they come out with run n gun fast with a ton of fix it rules.
When the fix is "dump many of the core rules and most of the gear stats" that's just not going to happen.
The reviews I've read so far sound like they are pretty decent and are sure to attract new players (which is the goal of every game). The only real complaints I'm hearing are printing errors (which is, unfortunately, pretty common), and folks that just don't want anything to change. By the way, if you fall into that group, try BattleTech™, their base rules haven't changed in 35 years. Granted, sneaking into Aztechnology is a lot harder when piloting a 35m tall 'Mech.
If you are piloting a 35m Mech, with all of its associated weaponry, do you *really* need to sneak? :P
-
I suspect they are already at the printer or printed. Best case they come out with run n gun fast with a ton of fix it rules.
When the fix is "dump many of the core rules and most of the gear stats" that's just not going to happen.
The reviews I've read so far sound like they are pretty decent and are sure to attract new players (which is the goal of every game). The only real complaints I'm hearing are printing errors (which is, unfortunately, pretty common), and folks that just don't want anything to change. By the way, if you fall into that group, try BattleTech™, their base rules haven't changed in 35 years. Granted, sneaking into Aztechnology is a lot harder when piloting a 35m tall 'Mech.
If you are piloting a 35m Mech, with all of its associated weaponry, do you *really* need to sneak? :P
http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/didheseeme.html
Pic to big to post
-
At that point you sneak so they don't Thor you. :P
-
Mad Cat beats any and all Inner Sphere mechs ...but if runners are armed with mechs, who do you think is supplying them?
-
I suspect they are already at the printer or printed. Best case they come out with run n gun fast with a ton of fix it rules.
When the fix is "dump many of the core rules and most of the gear stats" that's just not going to happen.
There are ways to patch it without going that extreme. Armor that soaks could basically be a dikote upgrade. A optional rule that melee uses strength for its dice pool instead of agility. Accelerate damage to 2dv per hit. Add threshold modifiers to combat for situational modifiers so firing blind is actually harder than not firing blind.
-
I suspect they are already at the printer or printed. Best case they come out with run n gun fast with a ton of fix it rules.
When the fix is "dump many of the core rules and most of the gear stats" that's just not going to happen.
The reviews I've read so far sound like they are pretty decent and are sure to attract new players (which is the goal of every game). The only real complaints I'm hearing are printing errors (which is, unfortunately, pretty common), and folks that just don't want anything to change. By the way, if you fall into that group, try BattleTech™, their base rules haven't changed in 35 years. Granted, sneaking into Aztechnology is a lot harder when piloting a 35m tall 'Mech.
I happened to play Battletech, and have been playing since 1991. Have also played Shadowrun since 1st.
And while the rules for Battletech the boardgame have stayed pretty much the same for most of it's existence, they have gone out of their way to cripple every other unit type (Aerospace fighters, armor, infantry,etc) to keep battlemech the kings of the battlefield.
Which shows a willingness to forgo game mechanics just to push their narrative, logic and good mechanics be damned.
example: In the scenario "Birth of the King" that shows the first Battlemech going up against a large group of tanks, they intentionally down graded the tanks to allow the Mech to win.
And then there is the RPG which shows a move from interesting well established flavorful PCs to generic flavorless PCs templates in the name of simplification.
And they even managed to make character creation a chore even when making these flavorless PCs.
Which shows a trend by CGL to suck-out the core of a game to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the RPG gaming world.
And to this day CGL have yet to fix any of the issues with "A Time of War", so I have little faith that any issues with this system will be addressed and every answer will be "That was what we intended".
To make a long story short, I have seen to much to give CGL the benefit of the doubt at this point.
-
By the way, if you fall into that group, try BattleTech™, their base rules haven't changed in 35 years.
I wanted to address this statement on it's own.
This has been a prevailing attitude from gaming companies in the last few years.
"If you don't like what we did to a game you have been supporting for and helping to keeping aloft for the last 25-35 years then go play something else"
To the best of my knowledge every dissenting voice so far on this forum, including mine, has said that they like most of the changes to the game.
All the issues I have seen or heard have been for things that could IMHO be fixed like: Armor not soaking, not true penalties, edge not effectively taking the place of the modifiers it was intended to replace and appearing gimmickie, etc. None of these are issues that could not be fix, but the response like always these days is "You are just the Oldguard That doesn't want change" so nothing has to be addressed.
Why can't this game or any other be for both the old players and the new?
Why does it have to be like everything we have done or get out.
FFG did the same thing with Legend of the five rings when they took it over.
But FFG got lucky with L5R in that they made it play close enough to Star Wars that they had a built in fan base after they drove-off all the old-time players.
Lets face it, no matter how popular your RPG may seem, it is still a niche game in a niche market.
Driving off fans you already have to try to get all new ones is never a good business strategy.
What should be done is trying to keep the fans you have and make new one.
I don't know about you but I have seen nothing here saying the system is horrible or just don't change my game.
Every complaint I have seen it a mechanic that seems off and players seem to be going out of their way to suggest or provide ideas to fix it.
Seems to me like a Oldguard Players base that is willing to make the change if some issues are addressed, but a company who doesn't care what its players think.
-
I'd say that the following topic from an old player gives a good impression what the new game is like for both old and new players: https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29452.0
I may not be an old player, but I did play SR4 for a while before switching to SR5 years ago and have been around long enough to know 'this will be weird, but let's give it a shot' counts for me.
-
By the way, if you fall into that group, try BattleTech™, their base rules haven't changed in 35 years.
I wanted to address this statement on it's own.
This have been a prevailing attitude from gaming companies in the last few years.
"If you don't like what we did to a game you have been supporting for and helping to keeping aloft for the last 25-35 years then go play something else"
To the best of my knowledge every dissenting voice so far on this forum, including mine, has said that they like most of the changes to the game.
All the issues I have seem or heard have been for things that could IMHO be fixed like: Armor not soaking, not true penalties, edge not effectively taking the place of the modifiers it was intended to replace and appearing gimmickie, etc. None of these are issues that could not be fix, but the response like always these days is "You are just the Oldguard That doesn't want change" so nothing has to be addressed.
Why can't this game or any other be for both the old players and the new?
Why does it have to be like everything we have done or get out.
FFG did the same thing with Legend of the five rings when they took it over.
But FFG got lucky with L5R in that they made it play close enough to Star Wars that they had a built in fan base after they drove-off all the old-time players.
Lets face it, no matter how popular your RPG may seem, it is still a niche game in a niche market.
Driving off fans you already have to try to get all new ones is never a good business strategy.
What should be done is trying to keep the fans you have and make new one.
I don't know about you but I have seen nothing here saying the system is horrible or just don't change my game.
Every complaint I have seen it a mechanic that seems off and players seem to be going out of their way to suggest or provide ideas to fix it.
Seems to me like a Oldguard Players base that is willing to make the change if some issues are addressed, but a company who doesn't care what its players think.
+1
-
I'd say that the following topic from an old player gives a good impression what the new game is like for both old and new players: https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29452.0
I may not be an old player, but I did play SR4 for a while before switching to SR5 years ago and have been around long enough to know 'this will be weird, but let's give it a shot' counts for me.
I have read it, and here I would have to accuse you of cherry-picking, as most of the comments on this thread are making the same argument that I am.
And no where in that thread does it say that his kids would have liked it less if armor provided soak or there where modifiers that addressed the difficulties with firing at long range in the dark on a rainy day.
And the tread even brought up the issues with edge begging.
So overall I am not seeing this as a shining example of how everyone old and new is loving this game.
-
Chandra and Fastjack's comments re: the old guard no wanting change is clearly an attempt at apologizing for Catalyst's horrific design choices for 6e.
I've been playing srun since 1e, I agree wholeheartedly that 5e needs simplification and revisions to core rules mechanics that NEVER worked (matrix, riggers, ramming/ driving among others).
The points I have been making on these forums and elsewhere is NOT "change is bad", but rather "catalyst just tossed the baby out with the bathwater" when they built 6e.
Not only did they not listen to the playerbase but they developed their replacement in an echo-chamber with almost zero outside input.
The result is the ridiculousness of 6e where wearing a bikini is mechanically comparable to wearing an armored suit and helmet, or where a pixie with a sword does the same damage as a troll with a sword.
I could go on but it will have to wait until 6e gets released to the public.
So when you hear folks straw-manning those with significant and real concerns about 6e as "just angry grognards who dont want change" you can understand just how far down the rabbit hole they have gone.
-
I've been playing shadowrun since 1990. I own every book/pdf, and have supported the game even when I didn't like the rules (5th edition). My comments are not about "apologizing" for Catalyst, but about how games change, even when the players don't want them to. My comments are not official, and I don't work for Catalyst. The only time my comments are on behalf of Catalyst is when I use my moderator voice and that's mostly to keep people playing nice.
My argument isn't that "grognards don't want change", but rather let's see the product before we complain about it. I know some of you were able to see stuff pre-release, and had signed NDAs about it, but I'm not on that list, so I have to go by the reviews I'm seeing of the game and waiting for me to get it in my own hands.
Most of the reviews I read talk about how the rules are easier to work with and how new players are excited for the game. I keep saying that, ultimately, that is the goal of every successful gaming company: to get new players.
Before these boards came about, I spent a lot of time lurking on Dumpshock. Lurking because nobody was welcoming new players, pointing players in the direction of where to find "X", or help them learn about the Shadowrun universe and play the game. These boards came out and it was full of that welcoming atmosphere and, even though we have hiccups, I like to think we keep that atmosphere.
When a new player comes to a gaming board, especially after a new product announcement that points them here, and the first thing they see is people complaining that this new rule sucks, or that the company doesn't listen to the players, you're heading to do one thing successfully: Forcing that new player to leave and ignore the game.
I'm sorry if I'm coming off a little harsh here, it's not my intention. I also do not intend on singling people out, especially because my duties here mean I have to be impartial on all matters, which I do my utmost to do. Whether I like you or not, as moderator, I try to enforce the rules with an unbiased opinion, and I've given out warnings and bans to posters I like and agree with, and also have cut through bullshit "reports" on posters I may not agree with, because the reporter was looking to pick on a forum member they didn't like.
To everyone on the boards to remember that you're not faceless hackers just throwing out comments, you're forum members that new and old players look to for your insights. I'm just asking that when you post about the new rules, whether you like them or not, remember that the new players first impression will be what you are saying and the tone you say it in.
-
I've been playing shadowrun since 1990. I own every book/pdf, and have supported the game even when I didn't like the rules (5th edition). My comments are not about "apologizing" for Catalyst, but about how games change, even when the players don't want them to. My comments are not official, and I don't work for Catalyst. The only time my comments are on behalf of Catalyst is when I use my moderator voice and that's mostly to keep people playing nice.
My argument isn't that "grognards don't want change", but rather let's see the product before we complain about it. I know some of you were able to see stuff pre-release, and had signed NDAs about it, but I'm not on that list, so I have to go by the reviews I'm seeing of the game and waiting for me to get it in my own hands.
Most of the reviews I read talk about how the rules are easier to work with and how new players are excited for the game. I keep saying that, ultimately, that is the goal of every successful gaming company: to get new players.
Before these boards came about, I spent a lot of time lurking on Dumpshock. Lurking because nobody was welcoming new players, pointing players in the direction of where to find "X", or help them learn about the Shadowrun universe and play the game. These boards came out and it was full of that welcoming atmosphere and, even though we have hiccups, I like to think we keep that atmosphere.
When a new player comes to a gaming board, especially after a new product announcement that points them here, and the first thing they see is people complaining that this new rule sucks, or that the company doesn't listen to the players, you're heading to do one thing successfully: Forcing that new player to leave and ignore the game.
I'm sorry if I'm coming off a little harsh here, it's not my intention. I also do not intend on singling people out, especially because my duties here mean I have to be impartial on all matters, which I do my utmost to do. Whether I like you or not, as moderator, I try to enforce the rules with an unbiased opinion, and I've given out warnings and bans to posters I like and agree with, and also have cut through bullshit "reports" on posters I may not agree with, because the reporter was looking to pick on a forum member they didn't like.
To everyone on the boards to remember that you're not faceless hackers just throwing out comments, you're forum members that new and old players look to for your insights. I'm just asking that when you post about the new rules, whether you like them or not, remember that the new players first impression will be what you are saying and the tone you say it in.
While I respect and understand your position and responsibility.
I will not in anyway praise or promote a system that I do not agree with or find reasonable playable.
As I have said many times I find large parts of the rule to be good, but I find the core of the system (edge) to be largely underdeveloped and non functional in its current state. I don't feel the system replaces the mods and armor that it is intended to replace.
And I will be the first to jump on someone for ignoring or driving off a new player, but (even if it is not what you meant) I will never walk the corporate line to promote a system that I do not have faith in.
You talk about driving off players by scaring them about the new system, but you are equally at fault if you give false information about how good you think the game is if you don't.
If CGL wants to have us not accuse them of ignoring the players them maybe they should not ignore the players.
While I did not truly expect them too, I have yet to see CGl make any effort to placate or even give a "It will make more sense in the full rules" response to any of the complaints.
And have hear multiple players who where in the play-test state that their complaints and suggestions where ignore.
And just to be clear I find major offence when told wither nicely or not that I should keep my opinions to myself on this game.
I also have not seen anyone say "this rule sucks", I have seen people say "I don't agree with how this rule is written" or "Armor should do more then +1 edge max" or them suggest option rules or fixes.
All-in-all, this is a place to discuss the rules and shadowrun in general bad or good and if you only want possessive CGL pleasing responses you should only allow CGL employees to post.
-
I also have not seen anyone say "this rule sucks"
I have. I have seen people declaring, over and over, in multiple topics, that X sucks, Y sucks, SR6 sucks, that Catalyst is bad for the IP, that Catalyst has no quality control whatsoever and SR6 proves they're not listening to anyone, that SR6 writers obviously aren't real fans and don't know what makes Shadowrun Shadowrun, that if the game system isn't fully changed immediately they will skip the entire edition, with personal attacks against non-naysayers on top. Without even seeing the actual rules. Depending on people's negative claims and player and GM mistakes made, combined with hyper-focus on aspects they don't like. There are cases in this topic, though I do hope you'll forgive me for not going through it page by page to point them out.
All-in-all, this is a place to discuss the rules and shadowrun in general bad or good and if you only want possessive CGL pleasing responses you should only allow CGL employees to post.
This topic is 35 pages. There's other lengthy topics as well. There's PLENTY of negative feedback, and asides from the occasional warning to not make things personal, it is all perfectly allowed. Only the recent 'jump into a topic, immediately post about lack of catalyst quality control, claim sr6 sucks' trend made him reiterate the forum rules that we said we would follow when we signed up to this forum. Rules that I have broken in the past, and have been properly punished for. That I have seen people act as if they didn't apply to them.
And it's clear he's not blindly making people shut up, given how you're not banned yet and plenty of criticism since that warning still stands as well.
I'm going to be frank here: I don't like FastJack, because I hold my grudges. I still have some VERY negative opinions about part of the events here in the past decade. There's one thing he did that I never will forgive him for. But even then I would NEVER falsely accuse him of the things you're claiming he's doing. He is NOT trying to silence criticism here. He NEVER said 'keep your opinions to yourself' or anything even REMOTELY like that. He did NOT tell you to pretend you're positive about a system you don't like.
If you were attacking anyone else with those claims, I'd report you and move on. But to see you claim that about an admin, to their face, to someone who has acted (whenever he actually did) impartial in at the very least 98% of the cases that I've seen (and the other 2% are my subjective opinion)? And you're claiming that the very behaviour he started calling out with the rule-reminder, didn't happen at all, when everyone here knows that it did? I call horseshit. There is no way that you don't know he isn't doing the bullshit you're claiming he's doing, and there's no way you, after having been active in this topic, haven't seen the rule-7-defying behaviour he warned about as a moderator.
Let. It. Go. You want to dislike SR6, go right ahead. You want to be upset not all playtesters got what they want, because opinions vary? Go right ahead. You want to argue about how specific rules should be different, go right ahead. You want to criticise FastJack's Battletech remark, which indeed sounded rather combatative, go right ahead. But stop pretending everyone is playing nice when we all know they're not, and stop making up false allegations about FastJack just because you're upset you're not allowed to act out.
This is a place to discuss the rules and shadowrun in general good or bad. Not a place to pick fights about things that were never said to begin with. He posted the clarification of his intent, and it's a proper match to what he said before, so there's no need to act as if he's lying through his teeth. Let. It. Go.
-
I’m all for crashing through Aztec’s front doors in a 45 ton Hatchetman mech! Gotta do a proper homage to a long lost runner.
...Leela would love to do that, in one with as much Grey Mana she can get.
"Blood magic...very baaaaad."
-
Well goodness, gotta air out all the old laundry tonight I guess. These little conversions are inevitable.
I'm certainly not in the "pro-6e" side. But I just want to take sec to add that I respect Fastjack. I think he does good job as a Mod. I have been warned by the mods in the past, and will probably be again, and I'll probably end up banned at some point. I personally always try to follow the rules, but I think most of our regulars know I call it like i see it, and folks sometimes apparently feel I'm less then Civil about it. I also personal don't agree with Fastjack on plenty of things. But I do think he always goes out of his way to be a responsible mod. I still suggest speaking truth to authority and if you disagree with a call, then I totally think you should say so.
So gamers don't like new editions, this is a well known fact of life. It's ok. It's naturally to fear what we don't understand. I am certainly not criticizing anyone for speak their minds on the subject. It's not a secret that rules we have seen so far for 6e make me nervous. I've said it before and I'll say it again I'm deeply concerned 6e will not be successful, and I know i'm not alone in that fear.
To me, we are in Götterdämmerung, the "Twilight of the Gods" or in this case the system. 5e isn't dead, and 6e isn't alive. But that situation won't hold, we have a couple more months of this, and we just have to make the best of it. Things will get heated from time to time, try not to take things personally, try not to post mad. Waiting 24 hours can make a huge difference in your perceptions. In the end, we all love SR, and we all want what's best for SR. Disagreeing on what this is just simply human nature. No shame in it.
So by all means please keep on expressing your concerns, lets just try to keep it to the specific issues wherever possible. I'm not saying let it go, but I'm suggesting folks to try and agree where you can, disagree where you can't and be as specific as possible where your concern are related and keep suggesting fixes as you come up with them.
-
I also have not seen anyone say "this rule sucks"
I have. I have seen people declaring, over and over, in multiple topics, that X sucks, Y sucks, SR6 sucks, that Catalyst is bad for the IP, that Catalyst has no quality control whatsoever and SR6 proves they're not listening to anyone, that SR6 writers obviously aren't real fans and don't know what makes Shadowrun Shadowrun, that if the game system isn't fully changed immediately they will skip the entire edition, with personal attacks against non-naysayers on top. Without even seeing the actual rules. Depending on people's negative claims and player and GM mistakes made, combined with hyper-focus on aspects they don't like. There are cases in this topic, though I do hope you'll forgive me for not going through it page by page to point them out.
I also think we have a very different idea of "the game sucks", While I will be the first to say that I don't read every thread on the site for the ones I have read fully (mostly dealing with the 6th ed threads) I have never seen a player come out and said the game sucks. Now again, I am in no way say that they are all positive, most have been critical of the rule set. To me "the game defy logic or that rule makes no sense in no way translated into the game sucks.
As to "Catalyst has no quality control". The only place I have seen this is in the thread about the dice. And frankly the people complain bought the dice and have every right to complain about bad quality control if the product is not up to par.
All-in-all, this is a place to discuss the rules and shadowrun in general bad or good and if you only want possessive CGL pleasing responses you should only allow CGL employees to post.
This topic is 35 pages. There's other lengthy topics as well. There's PLENTY of negative feedback, and asides from the occasional warning to not make things personal, it is all perfectly allowed. Only the recent 'jump into a topic, immediately post about lack of catalyst quality control, claim sr6 sucks' trend made him reiterate the forum rules that we said we would follow when we signed up to this forum. Rules that I have broken in the past, and have been properly punished for. That I have seen people act as if they didn't apply to them.
And it's clear he's not blindly making people shut up, given how you're not banned yet and plenty of criticism since that warning still stands as well.
So if
I believe I was very clear in my statement that I was responding to what I read from the statement. "but (even if it is not what you meant) I will never walk the corporate line to promote a system that I do not have faith in". And again even if I misread his intend, my statement is still true.
The minute a site admin starts using the "it drives away new players" line they are give an please don't bad mouth the game its bad for PR vibe in corporate speak response.
If you don't see it that way that is your opinion as this is mine.
As to
I'm going to be frank here: I don't like FastJack, because I hold my grudges. I still have some VERY negative opinions about part of the events here in the past decade. There's one thing he did that I never will forgive him for. But even then I would NEVER falsely accuse him of the things you're claiming he's doing. He is NOT trying to silence criticism here. He NEVER said 'keep your opinions to yourself' or anything even REMOTELY like that. He did NOT tell you to pretend you're positive about a system you don't like.
Frankly your beef with FastJack is none of mine or anyone else's concern and should have remained between you and him.
As to what I read, if you read something different in what was said that is you. I have been around (in life) for far to long and have seen statements like this on to many business and game sites not to have learned to read between the lines.
Again, The minute a site admin starts using the "it drives away new players" line they are give an please don't bad mouth the game its bad for PR vibe.
If you were attacking anyone else with those claims, I'd report you and move on. But to see you claim that about an admin, to their face, to someone who has acted (whenever he actually did) impartial in at the very least 98% of the cases that I've seen (and the other 2% are my subjective opinion)? And you're claiming that the very behaviour he started calling out with the rule-reminder, didn't happen at all, when everyone here knows that it did? I call horseshit. There is no way that you don't know he isn't doing the bullshit you're claiming he's doing, and there's no way you, after having been active in this topic, haven't seen the rule-7-defying behaviour he warned about as a moderator.
I'm sorry but being an admin in no way protects you from criticism. In fact it puts you in a position where what you say will receive even higher levels of criticism.
And just to be clear, Not sure from you response if you are implying it, but I have not received any warnings since I have been on this site, or any other sites.
And since it appears to be unclear I was not saying that he came out and said "keep you opinions to yourselves" in those words. I was say that is what I got out of the response. If you don't agree then that is fine, but never accuse me of lying.
Again, I also think we have a very different idea of "the game sucks", I have never seen a player come out and said the game sucks. Now again, I am in no way say that they are all positive, most have been critical of the rule set. To me "the game defy logic or that rule makes no sense in no way translated into the game sucks.
Let. It. Go. You want to dislike SR6, go right ahead. You want to be upset not all playtesters got what they want, because opinions vary? Go right ahead. You want to argue about how specific rules should be different, go right ahead. You want to criticise FastJack's Battletech remark, which indeed sounded rather combatative, go right ahead. But stop pretending everyone is playing nice when we all know they're not, and stop making up false allegations about FastJack just because you're upset you're not allowed to act out.
You have obviously not truly read any of my post before this one.
I do not want to hate 6th ed, and for the most part don't.
But as it stands right now with the armor, edge, healing, etc. rules as they are could not see myself playing it in its current condition.
The most combative posters I have see so far have been you and a few other 6th ed defenders.
This is a place to discuss the rules and shadowrun in general good or bad. Not a place to pick fights about things that were never said to begin with. He posted the clarification of his intent, and it's a proper match to what he said before, so there's no need to act as if he's lying through his teeth. Let. It. Go.
Again as a site admin, FastJack's should be held to a higher standard they everyone else, not protected by his title.
I not say that he is using that title for protection, but you comment that as admin he should not be allowed to be criticized is utterly wrong.
-
Criticize me all you want, as long as it's done CONSTRUCTIVELY. That is the point I'm making. Like, love, hate whatever, just be sure to post a reason for that opinion. I'm not asking you to tow the company line (hell, I don't think you should), but I am asking that you do post your opinions without emotion, and with the reasons you feel that way, just so that players can make an informed decision.
I guess I should have posted that the reverse is true as well when I first brought up Rule #7. If you're doing nothing buy being a corporate cheerleader, I'd be sending warnings about being constructive as well. The only reason I didn't put that in is because it hardly ever has happened.
Now that we've gotten all of this out of the way, let's get back on topic. Which, by the way, is sharing the information we do know about SR6, good or bad.
-
I also have not seen anyone say "this rule sucks"
Have you looked at Reddit in the last few months? There are a not insignificant number of of people actively hoping this edition completely fails, and more, takes the company with it. That’s simply mental and displays more of a hate of new ideas and players then a love of the game. Thankfully I haven’t really seen those people here.
The rules aren’t out yet. Won’t be for several months, so trying to argue that rules should be changed is pointless because we DON’T KNOW THEM YET! There was a big to-do not long ago about how it was turning ‘Oops All Mages!’ Because drain wasn’t a thing! *scary face!* Turned out that was false and ignores that in literally every edition of this game a min-maxer build mage could throw balls of instadeath with no drain while his spirits run interference. This is an old argument, not something new with 6th.
As for why armor my not work as well anymore, weapons technology has always moved faster than armor technology. here’s a fun little fictional news story.
<Sara Reads, VR Anchor>
In corporate news today, Ares Macrotechnologies has announced that their materials science devision has synthesized a new metal. Initially designed to replace steel, being stronger yet just a cheep to produce, the metal sadly had a tendency to warp under the pressure of use the buildings and vehicles they planned to use in operate under.
Not one to be defeated so easy, the arms division quickly realized that the metal retained it’s shape for several moments longer after impact then normal ammunition before deforming. This proved to make the bullets far superior to norm APDS rounds, while avoiding the problem of over-penetration. Independent testing confirm that the new ammunition’s penetration capabilities render most modern armors, obsolete.
The new rounds have quickly replaced normal ammunition in stores wherever Ares has a presence, while under mild protest from smaller security companies who complain about the lack of armor protection their guards now operate under.
-
So, likely the Beginner Box has same weapon stats as the final edition. There's 2 Light Pistols, 3 Heavy, SMG, Rifle, Shotgun, Taser, 3 Blades, 3 Clubs, 3 Armors, 3 Vehicles, 2 Drones, plus the rules regarding Direct and Indirect combat spells. Should I copy some of those so we can debate damage?
-
Criticize me all you want, as long as it's done CONSTRUCTIVELY. That is the point I'm making. Like, love, hate whatever, just be sure to post a reason for that opinion. I'm not asking you to tow the company line (hell, I don't think you should), but I am asking that you do post your opinions without emotion, and with the reasons you feel that way, just so that players can make an informed decision.
I guess I should have posted that the reverse is true as well when I first brought up Rule #7. If you're doing nothing buy being a corporate cheerleader, I'd be sending warnings about being constructive as well. The only reason I didn't put that in is because it hardly ever has happened.
Now that we've gotten all of this out of the way, let's get back on topic. Which, by the way, is sharing the information we do know about SR6, good or bad.
Tru dat.
However: The best way to encourage constructive criticism instead of red-headed venting is - well - listening to it. And maybe, just maybe, use it to actually construct something. Even and especially if you are tired of hearing a certain complaint over and over again from different people, because this is usally a good indicator for the ones that aren´t just nitpicks. Yes, it might be the case that those complaining, f.i., about strenghtless melee weapons are just a vocal minority. But it´s much more likely that it´s just the tip of the iceberg and that many other players are also put off by this change. Same goes for myriads of houserules poppin´ up.
I´m on the fence about many many things right now (mostly, the usual suspects: Strenght and Melee weapons, Armor-Edge-Meddling, Spirits being overpowered once again...), but there is one very good thing I can see in the new details about SR6 so far: It´s probably a lot easier to supplement, modify, houserule etc. than SR5. F.i., unlike SR5´s Limit mechanic, the Edge mechanic isn´t rotten from the core (at least IMHO) and can be tweaked in many different ways.
So please, make something out of this. There are already so many houserule ideas for modifying the effect of armor. Take some of them, test them and then present them as optional/additional rules in the upcoming combat book. That´s not a "sign of weakness" or a sign that the core was totally disfunctional shit and needed a patch (but yes, the "Grognards" will claim that. Give them their little win and move on). It´s just a sign that someone gives a damn.
-
So, likely the Beginner Box has same weapon stats as the final edition. There's 2 Light Pistols, 3 Heavy, SMG, Rifle, Shotgun, Taser, 3 Blades, 3 Clubs, 3 Armors, 3 Vehicles, 2 Drones, plus the rules regarding Direct and Indirect combat spells. Should I copy some of those so we can debate damage?
Actually I’d like the pistols or smg. Haven’t managed to meet up my friend who grabbed a box for me at Origins and I have my suspicions I know why they did the armor like they’ve apparently done.
-
Hold-Out/Light: 2P (but different attack ratings)
Heavy: 3P/4P (varying attack ratings and mods)
Uzi: 3P (Both SA and BF modes, attack ratings slightly worse than pistol)
-
To me, that´s a bigger concern than the "Armor is worthless"-hubbub (it´s two sides of the same coin, though): It´s almost impossible to reliably one-shot a standard metahuman goon - even in an ambush, even if the target wears no armor, even when blasting out your accumulated edge, even if it´s a shriveled up Body 1 office drone. That´s neither fun nor realistic and it´s a big problem for running stealth situations properly.
-
To me, that´s a bigger concern than the "Armor is worthless"-hubbub (it´s two sides of the same coin, though): It´s almost impossible to reliably one-shot a standard metahuman goon - even in an ambush, even if the target wears no armor, even when blasting out your accumulated edge, even if it´s a shriveled up Body 1 office drone. That´s neither fun nor realistic and it´s a big problem for running stealth situations properly.
Yup. Though I actually like the base damage. As the game should be able to reflect a flesh wound even against unarmored targets. I think the issue is the rate DV increases per net hit. Using 2e pistols did moderate damage of 3 boxes but 4 hits for you to deadly and with base TNs of 4 potentially 2 with a smart gun and no built in dodge you got to deadly fairly often even with their smaller pools. I’m not expecting staging back but 2dv per net hit would help here. You barely hit and hey great your pistol doesn’t one shot them. But a feasible number of hits can.
I did the math earlier and for a 4dv heavy pistol no armor, unaware office drone you need 7 hits or 21 dice pool. A aware office worker you’d need 9 hits or a 27 dice pool. To drop a random wage slave you needed to keep quiet.
I think narratively people can adjust to not one shoting random security guard in armor, shooting back. But this is a big narrative leap.
-
To me, that´s a bigger concern than the "Armor is worthless"-hubbub (it´s two sides of the same coin, though): It´s almost impossible to reliably one-shot a standard metahuman goon - even in an ambush, even if the target wears no armor, even when blasting out your accumulated edge, even if it´s a shriveled up Body 1 office drone. That´s neither fun nor realistic and it´s a big problem for running stealth situations properly.
That's fair. Since house rules are already being bandied about, I'll reiterate one I plan on using that's aimed right at this phenomenon:
Allowing a "one shot one kill" attack against an unaware opponent. No defense roll, but against a threshold instead (maybe linking threshold to Professional Rating, which automatically means the rule can't be used on PCs nor on "named" opposition...). Meet it and DV and CMs be damned, you disabled the guy!
-
To me, that´s a bigger concern than the "Armor is worthless"-hubbub (it´s two sides of the same coin, though): It´s almost impossible to reliably one-shot a standard metahuman goon - even in an ambush, even if the target wears no armor, even when blasting out your accumulated edge, even if it´s a shriveled up Body 1 office drone. That´s neither fun nor realistic and it´s a big problem for running stealth situations properly.
My problem with that is even many aware targets should be dealt with with ease. If I have a silenced pistol loaded with stick and shock and the janitor spots me, unless he was former special forces placed there to be a foil a PC should normally take them out in one move.
That's fair. Since house rules are already being bandied about, I'll reiterate one I plan on using:
Allowing a "one shot one kill" attack against an unaware opponent. No defense roll, but against a threshold instead. Meet it and DV and CMs be damned, you disabled the guy!
-
Hold-Out/Light: 2P (but different attack ratings)
Heavy: 3P/4P (varying attack ratings and mods)
Uzi: 3P (Both SA and BF modes, attack ratings slightly worse than pistol)
Alright, time to fire up the ‘ol mathSPU and crunch some numbers.
Stabby McRazerface wants to stab wanna-be ganger Lucky Eyes over some chicken, but Lucky draws his trusty uzi first and fires a shot. Gonna declare that hit/defense rolls are a wash as not important to this example.
In 5th an uzi does 7P. Average non-enhanced baseline bodies for physical oriented runners is 4. Average ‘not drawing attention to myself’ armor is 5, throw in a helmet and vitals kit as an additional 3 for a total of 8. 12 soak total with an average of 4 successes, lowering the damage to 3 boxes.
From what we know of sixth edition so far, Uzi damage is base 3P. Same body of 4 is 1.3 average soak successes, bringing damage to 2 boxes.
Overall math works the damage out to be roughly the same, with armor providing you more flexible tactical advantage, rather than just pure soak. It may lead to some oddly thought out appearances, but overall mechanics doesn’t seem to be that different for our armored runners. Super armored up tanks might not be as good, but the thought of a runner looking like they’re doing vehicular cosplay during a run always struck me as way to memorable to sec teams.
-
Do you know what we call distinctive brute force runners?
Omega Dawn bait.
-
To me, that´s a bigger concern than the "Armor is worthless"-hubbub (it´s two sides of the same coin, though): It´s almost impossible to reliably one-shot a standard metahuman goon - even in an ambush, even if the target wears no armor, even when blasting out your accumulated edge, even if it´s a shriveled up Body 1 office drone. That´s neither fun nor realistic and it´s a big problem for running stealth situations properly.
That's fair. Since house rules are already being bandied about, I'll reiterate one I plan on using that's aimed right at this phenomenon:
Allowing a "one shot one kill" attack against an unaware opponent. No defense roll, but against a threshold instead (maybe linking threshold to Professional Rating, which automatically means the rule can't be used on PCs nor on "named" opposition...). Meet it and DV and CMs be damned, you disabled the guy!
That’s not a bad idea. I personally always figured your average wage slave is going to get shot once and then cower on the ground in front of you letting you do whatever afterward.
Actually I tend to play most mooks the same way. I ain’t paid enough to fight to the death ;D
-
Yeah, there is the 2nd order benefit of being able to wear non-min/max'd armor to blend in with your surroundings and still be tactically relevant.
Not to mention the additional "benefit" of being able to dress in skimpy/open-chested clothing that artwork so often depicts! Look at the Better Than Bad artwork currently scrolling on the forum! Mage chica has a bare-skinned abdomen and ganger troll dude is wearing a mini-vest that leaves his chest all impressively bare. One way to look at the armor issue is to recognize that the mechanics are finally matching the artwork!
-
Cinematic playstyle fits execution rules imo. But I'm guessing it might get your team Notoriety.
-
To me, that´s a bigger concern than the "Armor is worthless"-hubbub (it´s two sides of the same coin, though): It´s almost impossible to reliably one-shot a standard metahuman goon - even in an ambush, even if the target wears no armor, even when blasting out your accumulated edge, even if it´s a shriveled up Body 1 office drone. That´s neither fun nor realistic and it´s a big problem for running stealth situations properly.
That's fair. Since house rules are already being bandied about, I'll reiterate one I plan on using that's aimed right at this phenomenon:
Allowing a "one shot one kill" attack against an unaware opponent. No defense roll, but against a threshold instead (maybe linking threshold to Professional Rating, which automatically means the rule can't be used on PCs nor on "named" opposition...). Meet it and DV and CMs be damned, you disabled the guy!
That’s not a bad idea. I personally always figured your average wage slave is going to get shot once and then cower on the ground in front of you letting you do whatever afterward.
Actually I tend to play most mooks the same way. I ain’t paid enough to fight to the death ;D
There's also the Professional Rating mechanic, and 6e does have its version of the "Mowing them Down" rule from 5e. If the GM wants to let you disable the Janitor with one attack, it can still happen anytime she likes.
-
Yeah, there is the 2nd order benefit of being able to wear non-min/max'd armor to blend in with your surroundings and still be tactically relevant.
Not to mention the additional "benefit" of being able to dress in skimpy/open-chested clothing that artwork so often depicts! Look at the Better Than Bad artwork currently scrolling on the forum! Mage chica has a bare-skinned abdomen and ganger troll dude is wearing a mini-vest that leaves his chest all impressively bare. One way to look at the armor issue is to recognize that the mechanics are finally matching the artwork!
This is the core of the problem with 6e, it's all pink mohawk now.
-
Yeah, there is the 2nd order benefit of being able to wear non-min/max'd armor to blend in with your surroundings and still be tactically relevant.
Not to mention the additional "benefit" of being able to dress in skimpy/open-chested clothing that artwork so often depicts! Look at the Better Than Bad artwork currently scrolling on the forum! Mage chica has a bare-skinned abdomen and ganger troll dude is wearing a mini-vest that leaves his chest all impressively bare. One way to look at the armor issue is to recognize that the mechanics are finally matching the artwork!
This is the core of the problem with 6e, it's all pink mohawk now.
Well the first thing I said in your quote is actually a huge benefit to black trenchcoat.
-
At this point, everything to be said about 6e has already been said and I want to move on to criticizing the damage control that's been going on. Criticisms have been at best dismissed, and there is no sign that changes will be made to the final product. It is clear that information on 6e was put out not to receive feedback, but to drum up hype. Unfortunately, several of the changes they implemented threw the baby out with the bathwater (boy, does that exact phrase get used often in this conversation) and criticism all they're getting. CG has the chance to backpedal, address the criticisms they've received and put out a final product that the player base will actually like. But I'm not confident that they'll take it.
Alright, time to fire up the ‘ol mathSPU and crunch some numbers.
Stabby McRazerface wants to stab wanna-be ganger Lucky Eyes over some chicken, but Lucky draws his trusty uzi first and fires a shot. Gonna declare that hit/defense rolls are a wash as not important to this example.
In 5th an uzi does 7P. Average non-enhanced baseline bodies for physical oriented runners is 4. Average ‘not drawing attention to myself’ armor is 5, throw in a helmet and vitals kit as an additional 3 for a total of 8. 12 soak total with an average of 4 successes, lowering the damage to 3 boxes.
From what we know of sixth edition so far, Uzi damage is base 3P. Same body of 4 is 1.3 average soak successes, bringing damage to 2 boxes.
Overall math works the damage out to be roughly the same, with armor providing you more flexible tactical advantage, rather than just pure soak. It may lead to some oddly thought out appearances, but overall mechanics doesn’t seem to be that different for our armored runners. Super armored up tanks might not be as good, but the thought of a runner looking like they’re doing vehicular cosplay during a run always struck me as way to memorable to sec teams.
I don't know what kind of Shadowrun you play, but in the circles I've played in 'not drawing attention to myself' armor is 12, plus 2 for a helmet, so you should be looking at 6 successes for your 5e example. Now let's bring in the rifle and shotgun numbers and see how much has changed there.
-
I don't know what kind of Shadowrun you play, but in the circles I've played in 'not drawing attention to myself' armor is 12, plus 2 for a helmet, so you should be looking at 6 successes for your 5e example. Now let's bring in the rifle and shotgun numbers and see how much has changed there.
From 5e Armor Jacket (which I assume is the foundation of your 12 armor):
"It offers good
protection without catching too much attention. But
don’t think of wearing one to a dinner party."
The way I've always treated it when I GM is if any place has a dress code, Armor Jackets don't satisfy it. Nor are wageslaves walking around inside a corp compound wearing armor jackets. And helmets (and of course shields) ALWAYS attract attention. If you're obscuring your face, you're obviously up to no good. Think of walking into any place of business wearing a ski mask in real life. It's the same thing, only armored.
YMMV.
-
If I have to go somewhere nice and be visible there, I'll put on my Executive Suit and get 12 armor anyways, then put on a ballistics mask when bullets start flying. If it's somewhere I'm in trouble if anyone sees me no matter what I'm wearing, I'll be wearing FBA with helmet for even more armor. You're underestimating how much armor any competent player is going to be wearing at any given time, while also ignoring that lowering DV values has skewed lethality for targets that should be very easy to take out.
-
I don't know what kind of Shadowrun you play, but in the circles I've played in 'not drawing attention to myself' armor is 12, plus 2 for a helmet, so you should be looking at 6 successes for your 5e example. Now let's bring in the rifle and shotgun numbers and see how much has changed there.
From 5e Armor Jacket (which I assume is the foundation of your 12 armor):
"It offers good
protection without catching too much attention. But
don’t think of wearing one to a dinner party."
The way I've always treated it when I GM is if any place has a dress code, Armor Jackets don't satisfy it. Nor are wageslaves walking around inside a corp compound wearing armor jackets. And helmets (and of course shields) ALWAYS attract attention. If you're obscuring your face, you're obviously up to no good. Think of walking into any place of business wearing a ski mask in real life. It's the same thing, only armored.
YMMV.
That's why I took a Ballistic Mask and added Fashion Gas Mask to it. No social penalties. It included a Voice Warper for being extra dramatic, and went well with my Berwick Suit collection (1 for each type of armor mod) and my neat Ares Briefcase (Shield). Also Lapel Daggers and Mortimer of London Sword Cane.
(I was basically playing The Transporter, movie-style. Was fun.)
-
Yeah, there is the 2nd order benefit of being able to wear non-min/max'd armor to blend in with your surroundings and still be tactically relevant.
Not to mention the additional "benefit" of being able to dress in skimpy/open-chested clothing that artwork so often depicts! Look at the Better Than Bad artwork currently scrolling on the forum! Mage chica has a bare-skinned abdomen and ganger troll dude is wearing a mini-vest that leaves his chest all impressively bare. One way to look at the armor issue is to recognize that the mechanics are finally matching the artwork!
This is the core of the problem with 6e, it's all pink mohawk now.
Well the first thing I said in your quote is actually a huge benefit to black trenchcoat.
Not really at all Stainless, armored business suits, gowns, vests and clothing accomplish that in 5e and all prior editions.
The change from armor rules reflecting reality (they stop / reduce incoming damage) to armor being D&D AC (harder to hit, but do not reduce or affect damage) is a poor design choice imho.
It's actually worse than D&D because, as has been said ad nauseam, it doesn't even affect your chance to hit (attack and defense rating do not determine if you hit or not, but rather how much edge you gain or don't gain).
So, to turn back to my prior posts that have only been met with "but 6e is awesome!" nonsense srun has now effectively determined that a bikini is materially similar to an armored jacket and helmet in a firefight.
That's fine for pink mohawk games but wholly unsuitable for a game that has grounding in realistic in world responses, i.e. black trenchcoat.
That's a problem that's very simple to state, seemingly impossible to refute (I have seen no logical refutations of this point yet) and wholesales moves 6e from a shadowrun that lets you determine your own playstyle (pink vs. trench) instead forcing you squarely into pink mohawk.
There are other changes that reinforce this, melee weapons not factoring strength, the weapon damage codes themselves remove granularity and difference between weapons effectively meaning we all will use one type of light pistol, one type of smg, etc. as it's the clearly superior one.
There are other, similar, bone-headed over simplifications that this approach to tossing out all the detail and replacing it with edge that are even crazier.
Having said all that IF you like Pink Mohawk I think 6e will be awesome for your table.
It's just not what I like to play and not what srun historically has been.
-
Alright, time to fire up the ‘ol mathSPU and crunch some numbers.
Stabby McRazerface wants to stab wanna-be ganger Lucky Eyes over some chicken, but Lucky draws his trusty uzi first and fires a shot. Gonna declare that hit/defense rolls are a wash as not important to this example.
In 5th an uzi does 7P. Average non-enhanced baseline bodies for physical oriented runners is 4. Average ‘not drawing attention to myself’ armor is 5, throw in a helmet and vitals kit as an additional 3 for a total of 8. 12 soak total with an average of 4 successes, lowering the damage to 3 boxes.
From what we know of sixth edition so far, Uzi damage is base 3P. Same body of 4 is 1.3 average soak successes, bringing damage to 2 boxes.
Overall math works the damage out to be roughly the same, with armor providing you more flexible tactical advantage, rather than just pure soak. It may lead to some oddly thought out appearances, but overall mechanics doesn’t seem to be that different for our armored runners. Super armored up tanks might not be as good, but the thought of a runner looking like they’re doing vehicular cosplay during a run always struck me as way to memorable to sec teams.
I don't know what kind of Shadowrun you play, but in the circles I've played in 'not drawing attention to myself' armor is 12, plus 2 for a helmet, so you should be looking at 6 successes for your 5e example. Now let's bring in the rifle and shotgun numbers and see how much has changed there.
And this kids is why you shouldn’t get second hand mathSPUs! Sometimes they glitch and you pull up number files from several editions ago (3rd ed armored jacket 5/3 rating). So to recrunch my numbers, that’s 16 soak with armored jacket (12) and helmet (+2) with a Bod of 4. That works out to 5.3 soak on the roll bringing it down to 1 box damage. Leads to a tradeoff between a bit more soak vs tactical flexibility.
Yeah, there is the 2nd order benefit of being able to wear non-min/max'd armor to blend in with your surroundings and still be tactically relevant.
This is the core of the problem with 6e, it's all pink mohawk now.
It can encourage and enhance all types of play, pink mohawk, black trench-coat, and mirror shades alike. Your pink mohawk players can wear the crazy outfits so often depicted in cyberpunk art without worry. Your black trench-coat players can focus more on blending in situationally and could very well be more encouraged to use a lot of cover, just like real combat. And finally your mirror shades players have their usual mix of the other two drawing from benefits of both.
-
... You're underestimating how much armor any competent player is going to be wearing at any given time, while also ignoring that lowering DV values has skewed lethality for targets that should be very easy to take out.
See 5e pg 379. There's still a similar rule to Mowing them Down in 6e. Whether 5e or 6e, if the GM feels the NPC shouldn't take more than a gank to neutralize, it doesn't.
-
As a professional Pink-Mohawk Player (read my tag line if you don't believe me). My gaming group loved heavy armor (aka lots of dice), big weapons, and lots of explosives (read 2 mages). But we also like our games deadly, so we were almost always moments away from burning Edge. Luckily, we had amazing rolls so that never happened.
My point is, while bikini/muscle shirt tops look cool in art, it makes no since in a shoot out. Why are your players using armored clothing when Armored Jackets/Executive Business level of armor exists? I get occasionally you cant use those, but there are plenty of armor ~9 high end clothing/specialty armor out there for the players (and bad guys) to use.
As for 6ed armor thing, I get that the damage codes and soak pools got stupid fast, Troll with Nodachi anyone, same Troll with all the stackable armor were? But, armor only giving a single die reroll effectively, unless you have more edge to use, is crazy as well. Honestly, to me the fact that people are already saying how they would modify the rules for home games scares me. That is showing, to me, that something doesn't work or at least is a bad selling point.
Finally, yeah 5th was horrible for a lot of rules and others were useable, with either clarification, officially or via table calls. But I personally love crunchy games. The trend of simplify everything is personally a copy of D&D5 ability to reclaim top dog of RPGs, held for a decent while by Paizo and Pathfinder 1 (also super crunchy). Now, suddenly, both Pathfinder and ShadowRun are like, yeah lets do that! Granted both systems needed work, but not, in my opinion, how it was done.
-
It can encourage and enhance all types of play, pink mohawk, black trench-coat, and mirror shades alike. Your pink mohawk players can wear the crazy outfits so often depicted in cyberpunk art without worry. Your black trench-coat players can focus more on blending in situationally and could very well be more encouraged to use a lot of cover, just like real combat. And finally your mirror shades players have their usual mix of the other two drawing from benefits of both.
As I noted in response to Stainless's comment re: "hooray we can now wear normal clothes and not care so that's awesome for black trenchcoat" (i'm paraphrasing) that's a bogus argument as you can do that with armored suits, clothes, vests, gowns and still retain the relationship to reality.
So again, there have been no reasonable arguments to date why removing the relevance of armor (and other similar divorcements from reality) is now better. In fact most have been factually incorrect (see above).
The only semi-reasonable argument I have heard is "because tanks in 5e were impossible to kill" which is a decent argument until you realize that:
1). it's WORSE in 6e with the lower damage codes meaning higher body is now hyper-effective.
2). there's other ways to skin this cat that could have resulted in both meaningful limits on soak pools AND something that reflects reality enough (not perfectly, but enough).
IMHO 6e is a clear indication that the developers wanted shadowrun to become wholly pink mohawk (perhaps that's the play style they all play so it didn't seem like an issue?) and there is no longer any room for a black trench play in srun.
That's a change from prior editions and not a good move imho.
YMMV
-
Honestly, to me the fact that people are already saying how they would modify the rules for home games scares me.
People shouted the same with SR5, and probably with any new edition of any RPG. So can't use that as judgement factor, really. Heck, if we want to take people's expressed concerns as gospel: We have both claims that the game will be Pink Mohawk only and claims that the game will be Black Trenchcoat only now. If what people are saying is taken as gospel, that means SR6 is a living and breathing paradox that will end the universe and all life in it.
As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.
-
So, to turn back to my prior posts that have only been met with "but 6e is awesome!" nonsense srun has now effectively determined that a bikini is materially similar to an armored jacket and helmet in a firefight.
That's fine for pink mohawk games but wholly unsuitable for a game that has grounding in realistic in world responses, i.e. black trenchcoat.
Except it's only beneficial for pink mohawk on an aesthetic level (according to your definition of pink mohawk aesthetics anyways); on a gameplay level, it's actually very detrimental. Pink mohawk players need soak dice just as much as, if not far more than, their black trenchcoat counterparts because they got shot at more often. In fact, the lack of soak dice is going to push players to black trenchcoat if anything, because now the only way to survive until the end of the run is to not get shot at in the first place.
See 5e pg 379. There's still a similar rule to Mowing them Down in 6e. Whether 5e or 6e, if the GM feels the NPC shouldn't take more than a gank to neutralize, it doesn't.
Optional rules do not excuse poor core rules. And what about fringe cases where the target should be easy to take down but is definitely not a grunt? Does Mowing Them Down apply to whomever the GM feels like it applies to? Do the rules even matter anymore?
-
As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.
This is baseless afaik.
I have heard no one says it's better for black trench supported by any reasonable argument.
Do you have one Michael?
-
So, to turn back to my prior posts that have only been met with "but 6e is awesome!" nonsense srun has now effectively determined that a bikini is materially similar to an armored jacket and helmet in a firefight.
That's fine for pink mohawk games but wholly unsuitable for a game that has grounding in realistic in world responses, i.e. black trenchcoat.
Except it's only beneficial for pink mohawk on an aesthetic level (according to your definition of pink mohawk aesthetics anyways); on a gameplay level, it's actually very detrimental. Pink mohawk players need soak dice just as much as, if not far more than, their black trenchcoat counterparts because they got shot at more often. In fact, the lack of soak dice is going to push players to black trenchcoat if anything, because now the only way to survive until the end of the run is to not get shot at in the first place.
you are of course correct, my reference to pink mohawk was stylistically related.
-
I have heard no one says it's better for black trench supported by any reasonable argument.
It fucks over black trenchcoat less than it does other play styles because how much it fucks over your play style is directly proportionate to how often you get shot at while playing your play style. That's as close as we're ever going to get to a "reasonable argument".
-
Style of play we kind of need definitions for. I think people are using the terms differently.
I’d say 6e seems more divorced from reality. Not necessarily narrative but making no efforts to fit with simulation at all. No idea what that means style of play wise.
As for mow then down rules, the GM will fix it doesn’t actually fix core design issues. It should work on its own with the GM nudging around the edges for unusual play.
-
See 5e pg 379. There's still a similar rule to Mowing them Down in 6e. Whether 5e or 6e, if the GM feels the NPC shouldn't take more than a gank to neutralize, it doesn't.
Optional rules do not excuse poor core rules. And what about fringe cases where the target should be easy to take down but is definitely not a grunt? Does Mowing Them Down apply to whomever the GM feels like it applies to? Do the rules even matter anymore?
Mowing them Down in 5e already applies whenever the GM wants it to.
One of the major goals in 6e (my synthesis- I was not involved in writing or playtesting) is to change combat into a back and forth affair that lasts more than 1 combat round. This is a MAJOR change from 5e. And completely deliberate. Frankly, I'm excited to see 5e games of rocket tag go away forever.
Now, it's completely fair that at times it's very undesirable for what should be a silent elimination be a back and forth affair that 6e wants combat to be. So in those cases, the GM is armed with a rule to situationally bypass the back and forth and "Mow them Down".
From my POV it's a win/win from a design standpoint. Exciting and engaging combats? Check. Capability to quickly silence the Janitor when that's called for? Check.
-
I have heard no one says it's better for black trench supported by any reasonable argument.
It fucks over black trenchcoat less than it does other play styles because how much it fucks over your play style is directly proportionate to how often you get shot at while playing your play style. That's as close as we're ever going to get to a "reasonable argument".
Yah I guess this a definition of playstyle issue then.
For me black trench involves serious action / fights but also realistic in world responses to violence etc.
I want my runners picking the best weapon for their mission, the best armor and other gear and thoughtfully kitting for missions as an integral part of their prep.
I.E. as close to real world effects as possible.
6e wholly fails that sort of gameplay as most of that can be tossed out the window as wholly irrelevant; might as well put on a bikini and just punch someone as it does as much damage or more than a pistol.
-
Mowing them Down in 5e already applies whenever the GM wants it to.
So the rules don't matter anymore, it's just whatever the GM feels like. Got it.
One of the major goals in 6e (my synthesis- I was not involved in writing or playtesting) is to change combat into a back and forth affair that lasts more than 1 combat round. This is a MAJOR change from 5e. And completely deliberate. Frankly, I'm excited to see 5e games of rocket tag go away forever.
I don't know what you're talking about. I've been through multiple 5e combats, and none of them were "rocket tag". In fact, the fights against higher-end enemies involved more back and forth than the ones against streetscum. I'm starting to think that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Now, it's completely fair that at times it's very undesirable for what should be a silent elimination be a back and forth affair that 6e wants combat to be. So in those cases, the GM is armed with a rule to situationally bypass the back and forth and "Mow them Down".
If he notices that the rule exists and actually remembers it on game night. Fun fact, I've read through the CRB many times but the first time you mentioned "Mowing Them Down" in this thread, I had to go look for that rule because I was convinced that you were just pulling something out of your ass. This is part of the reason why optional rules don't excuse poor core rules: they're not just optional, they're forgettable and easy to overlook.
-
Same. 1st I heard of mowing them down. I still roll with professional ratings I’m most fights from 1e. No idea how they have changed in 5e off hand. It worked, felt no need to change it. But cowering or stopping fighting isn’t disabled. So it doesn’t work in many situations.
-
Well, there ya go.
37 pages into a discussion about 6e y'all learned a rule from 5e. :D
-
yeah Stainless im not familiar with rocket tag as function of combat in 5e.
It's never worked that way for our table and we play vanilla 5e combat rules.
Combats involve plenty of back and forth and most damage is stun.
It seems like you're experience of 5e combat is very different from ours, not sure why.
-
yeah Stainless im not familiar with rocket tag as function of combat in 5e.
It's never worked that way for our table and we play vanilla 5e combat rules.
Combats involve plenty of back and forth and most damage is stun.
It seems like you're experience of 5e combat is very different from ours, not sure why.
Maybe some context would help.
I heard the term Rocket Tag originally in Pathfinder Organized Play, where it obviously doesn't literally mean combat with Rocket Launchers. It means combats that are decided by who gets the first massive hit in, which is usually whoever is going first.
For a Shadowrun example: Throwing a F12 Lightning Ball on your first of 4 initiative passes is Rocket Tag. If the fight isn't already over right there, no way will 3 more attacks fail to finish the fight off before the combat round ends. The local meta where I play, that's a chargen character not a prime runner.
Another aspect of Rocket Tag in a shadowrun context (specifically 5e) is yes armor is so effective, usually all you take is at worst a little stun. Until you get hit by something with enough DV and/or AP that it's physical damage. Once you hit that critical mass of DV to soak pool ratio, it's death. The "rocket" in "rocket tag". There's in effect no middle ground between chunky salsa and a little bit of stun (once you get into minmaxing, at least).
-
Yeah I understand what you're saying I'm just saying we don't see that.
We often end up with characters injured in various degrees.
It may be because we don't permit reagents to overcast f12 lightning bolts but that doesn't seem particularly relevant here as there are plenty of weapons that can dish out the hurt that aren't lightning bolts.
-
Well, there ya go.
37 pages into a discussion about 6e y'all learned a rule from 5e. :D
But that's the problem. No one was aware the rule even existed until you brought it up as a counterpoint. How is the optional rule going to save anyone from garbage core rules when no one knows it exists?
For a Shadowrun example: Throwing a F12 Lightning Ball on your first of 4 initiative passes is Rocket Tag. The local meta where I play, that's a chargen character not a prime runner.
Your meta's fucked mate, no two ways about it. There's no reason to make the game worse for 99% of the players just to correct stuff that only happens at the bellends.
Another aspect of Rocket Tag in a shadowrun context (specifically 5e) is yes armor is so effective, usually all you take is at worst a little stun. Until you get hit by something with enough DV and/or AP that it's physical damage. Once you hit that critical mass of DV to soak pool ratio, it's death. The "rocket" in "rocket tag". There's in effect no middle ground between chunky salsa and a little bit of stun.
One, I see no problem with this. Two, yes there is a middle ground, it's when the damage is lethal but not enough to instagib you. This usually occurs when the DV is relatively low but the AP is relatively high, like an SMG loaded with APDS.
-
For a Shadowrun example: Throwing a F12 Lightning Ball on your first of 4 initiative passes is Rocket Tag.
5. In Missions. Before there was the run-away-from-aoe action. And he spellshaped it to be 18m-radius. Wiped out the entire group of enemies in Lost Islands Found final battle.
He did it often. The one time he kept standing after throwing that kind of attack, the next pass he threw another. Again, using Spellshaping to make sure he'd never score more than his Magic in hits.
-
yeah Stainless im not familiar with rocket tag as function of combat in 5e.
It's never worked that way for our table and we play vanilla 5e combat rules.
Combats involve plenty of back and forth and most damage is stun.
It seems like you're experience of 5e combat is very different from ours, not sure why.
Maybe some context would help.
I heard the term Rocket Tag originally in Pathfinder Organized Play, where it obviously doesn't literally mean combat with Rocket Launchers. It means combats that are decided by who gets the first massive hit in, which is usually whoever is going first.
For a Shadowrun example: Throwing a F12 Lightning Ball on your first of 4 initiative passes is Rocket Tag. If the fight isn't already over right there, no way will 3 more attacks fail to finish the fight off before the combat round ends. The local meta where I play, that's a chargen character not a prime runner.
Another aspect of Rocket Tag in a shadowrun context (specifically 5e) is yes armor is so effective, usually all you take is at worst a little stun. Until you get hit by something with enough DV and/or AP that it's physical damage. Once you hit that critical mass of DV to soak pool ratio, it's death. The "rocket" in "rocket tag". There's in effect no middle ground between chunky salsa and a little bit of stun (once you get into minmaxing, at least).
Can confirm Rocket Tag is the local Meta. Fights last one turn, except for the totally crazy ones. Most of the local Cons are similar. Even in Neo-Tokyo, because ending the fight in one turn gives you more time to run away from the Police response.
I suspect 6E will be Rocket Punch Tag for the more combat optimized tables, at least from what I've seen of 6E so far.
-
i've played missions runs, so i don't know how crappy the NPC opponents are or how OP the PCs are.
Having said that our group is playing runners with 250+ karma so they are quite a bit more powerful than most missions PCs i would imagine.
-
For a Shadowrun example: Throwing a F12 Lightning Ball on your first of 4 initiative passes is Rocket Tag. The local meta where I play, that's a chargen character not a prime runner.
Your meta's fucked mate, no two ways about it. There's no reason to make the game worse for 99% of the players just to correct stuff that only happens at the bellends.
You make a bold assumption that the system for 6th (which I feel I must remind people constantly we haven't seen yet, let alone played) is going to be worse for almost all gamers. What's already been described will be able to draw my own group into it finally, as two of my players aren't good number crunchers and the level of math-run in 5th turned them off to the game.
It can encourage and enhance all types of play, pink mohawk, black trench-coat, and mirror shades alike. Your pink mohawk players can wear the crazy outfits so often depicted in cyberpunk art without worry. Your black trench-coat players can focus more on blending in situationally and could very well be more encouraged to use a lot of cover, just like real combat. And finally your mirror shades players have their usual mix of the other two drawing from benefits of both.
As I noted in response to Stainless's comment re: "hooray we can now wear normal clothes and not care so that's awesome for black trenchcoat" (i'm paraphrasing) that's a bogus argument as you can do that with armored suits, clothes, vests, gowns and still retain the relationship to reality.
By that logic I can now also invent entire immersive lines of clothing designs from armored suits, clothes, vests, gowns, all without needing to create new fully formed and balanced rules for each of them, or remaking a 15th version of the same stat line.
Style of play we kind of need definitions for. I think people are using the terms differently.
I’d say 6e seems more divorced from reality. Not necessarily narrative but making no efforts to fit with simulation at all. No idea what that means style of play wise.
As for mow then down rules, the GM will fix it doesn’t actually fix core design issues. It should work on its own with the GM nudging around the edges for unusual play.
If you want an actual gun battle simulator, a pro tip. A lot of people who get shot die from blood loss due to arterial bleeding in their extremities. Most of the rest die from shock. Despite what Hollywood tells you, single gun shots rarely kill people instantly. Also remember that such easy one-shot-kills also apply to your character as well.
As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.
This is baseless afaik.
I have heard no one says it's better for black trench supported by any reasonable argument.
Do you have one Michael?
So what? Is that the only measure of how good peoples play of the game is? Black Trench Coat or GTFO? People who've posted that they've played it seem to have overall enjoyed it. Period. That's it. That's not baseless, it's just not what you're wanting to hear. If you want it to fit your particular table, wait till the full rules come out and modify what rules you want to get your gritty realistic cybernoir game. Meanwhile I'll take those same rules and tweak what I want for my tables more light-hearted silly-but-sometimes-serious game. This isn't a zero-sum finish line.
The game rules becoming more simple and abstract is neither good nor bad, same with a more simulater game. It simply appeals to a different crowd, and the overall gaming crowd right now wants a more simple and abstract rule set that they can add to as needed for their particular groups style. It even makes sense when you think that they are often coming from video games with weird arbitrary rules of what you can and can't do and try to simulate things.
I recommend listening to Bob Dylan's song The Times They Are a-Changin. Things change whether we like it or not, and in the case of Shadowrun, may be going back to their roots. These were the very first archatypes after all (https://everythingexplodes.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/the-ridiculous-archetypes-of-shadowrun/). Realistic and gritty they are not.
PS: I want that street mages hat.
-
to be clear (do i need to be MORE clear?) I am NOT saying black trench or GTFO. Both playstyles are fun, for sure. And one is not "wrong". It just comes down to personal preference.
Shadowrun used to give you the ability to exercise that preference.
I am saying, repeatedly, 6e turns shadowrun into MiB / Pink Mohawk style without room for Black Trench.
Black Trench is just not possible with 6e due to it's highly abstracted mechanics that are divorced from reality.
I hope that's clearer for ya.
-
And to further clear it up no one asking for a perfect gun battle simulator. But you know little things like hard shots being harder to make than easy shots is kind of the low level reality requests we are making.
-
You make a bold assumption that the system for 6th (which I feel I must remind people constantly we haven't seen yet, let alone played) is going to be worse for almost all gamers. What's already been described will be able to draw my own group into it finally, as two of my players aren't good number crunchers and the level of math-run in 5th turned them off to the game.
"Soak pools are reduced to almost nothing, armor does nothing, strength doesn't increase melee damage, guns are piss weak, modifiers are gone, the action economy is borked, everything runs on a newfangled edge mechanic, but it was all worth it because now the normies and casuals will like it!"
Do you want gatekeeping to happen? Because this is how you get gatekeeping. The hobby changes in a way the core playerbase doesn't like, and at the same time new players, many of whom would have never have touched the hobby had these changes not been made, start coming in. The core playerbase notices these two things happening at the same time and comes to associate new players with their hobby changing in ways they don't like. New players are perceived as a threat to the hobby. The core playerbase adopts elitist attitudes, and then everyone is worse off.
-
that's a scarily good psychological profile of the gaming community there ghostrigger.
-
You make a bold assumption that the system for 6th (which I feel I must remind people constantly we haven't seen yet, let alone played) is going to be worse for almost all gamers. What's already been described will be able to draw my own group into it finally, as two of my players aren't good number crunchers and the level of math-run in 5th turned them off to the game.
"Soak pools are reduced to almost nothing, armor does nothing, strength doesn't increase melee damage, guns are piss weak, modifiers are gone, the action economy is borked, everything runs on a newfangled edge mechanic, but it was all worth it because now the normies and casuals will like it!"
Do you want gatekeeping to happen? Because this is how you get gatekeeping. The hobby changes in a way the core playerbase doesn't like, and at the same time new players, many of whom would have never have touched the hobby had these changes not been made, start coming in. The core playerbase notices these two things happening at the same time and comes to associate new players with their hobby changing in ways they don't like. New players are perceived as a threat to the hobby. The core playerbase adopts elitist attitudes, and then everyone is worse off.
I've heard gatekeeping being threatened in other games. When D&D moved from 1st to 2nd edition. From 2nd to 3rd. From 3rd to 4th. From 4th to 5th. When White Wolf stopped producing Vampire: the Masquerade. When BattleTech had the problems with the Unseen, and again with Dark Age. When FASA closed it doors, and WizKids tried the Shadowrun Collectible Action Figures. Even when D&D announced 4th Edition and Paizo countered with Pathfinder. Nobody was worse off in the end.
Also, what do you consider the core playerbase? Is just people that played 5th Edition? Is it players that have played every edition since 1st? Only the players that have tried every edition? Players that played both Harlequin and Harlequin's Back? All the people that have read all the original Roc novels? Or people that have read the Kellan Colt trilogy? Maybe those that have played in all the seasons of Shadowrun Missions? Forum members? Non-forum members? Only forum members with more than 4 Nuyen under their names?
You start talking about a core playerbase, you get into dangerous waters where you become elitist and think that you know what's best for the game, no matter what anyone else likes.
-
all good points fastjack.
a fan survey before the start of 6e development might have been useful!
-
all good points fastjack.
a fan survey before the start of 6e development might have been useful!
On that, I totally agree. There is a current survey (Looking for some answers... (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29436.0)). Better late than never.
-
books already in print, not much use now unfortunately.
I will say I think Banshee's a good guy and his heart is in the right place.
(I'm trying to give kudos whenever I can as the freelancers tend to be the ones eating all the shit for Catalyst's mis-steps and that's not fair imho).
-
You make a bold assumption that the system for 6th (which I feel I must remind people constantly we haven't seen yet, let alone played) is going to be worse for almost all gamers. What's already been described will be able to draw my own group into it finally, as two of my players aren't good number crunchers and the level of math-run in 5th turned them off to the game.
"Soak pools are reduced to almost nothing, armor does nothing,
Soak based on body is the same, armor now gives tactical advantage and possibly focuses more on things beyond shot'n'stab soak. I'd imagine by 2075 ballistic weave is in every color and can be made into every type of clothing.
strength doesn't increase melee damage,
Have you been in a fight with melee weapons? Trained for such? You want more realistic, guess what? Strength measures very little to knowing how to use the weapon your holding. I could stab someone with a knife sure, but I don't know were to stab you to do anything more then give a nasty laceration. My friend who's advanced level in it could stab someone once and do more damage then I could in several blows, and he's a third my muscle mass. Besides, every tweeked build I ever saw that focused on melee went with a cyberarm with maxed out mods, or went shock/monowhip were strength doesn't matter. The new system seems to make skill the deciding factor in most melee fights, not your bench press stats.
guns are piss weak,
And are scaled down to match the lack of armor to soak, keeping overall personal damage levels roughly the same.
modifiers are gone,
And so is reference 17 different pages and a cheat sheet grid to keep track of it all. Plus it now let's in players who suck at math-run.
the action economy is borked,
everything runs on a newfangled edge mechanic,
You want to point out the page that has to rules you would change? Oh right, we have speculation and nothing more so far. People bitched to high heaven back on Dumpshock when 4th ed came out about how the game was fragged and action economy sucked now!
but it was all worth it because now the normies and casuals will like it!"
You want to bitch to me about gatekeeping with that type of comment? You remind me of all the "hardcore" players of WoW screaming because they aren't a majority anymore. Or the 40k players at the new Power Point system. Or old D&Ders with literally every edition. Who do you think becomes the core players? normies and casuals who pick up the book and like it. You throw shade at them and push them away in your quest for hyper-realism and you will end up with a dead game due to lack of enough people buying it, or you burn out in rage trying to fight the tide rather then ride it and direct your craft.
I'm a core player base. I've been playing this game for a very long time now. It's always been over the top and a little silly, with the understanding that if you wanted more realism you went to Cyberpunk 2020. The two games are sister games, one leaning more Black Trench, the other more Pink Hawk.
You want to talk gatekeeping and elitist attitude? Chummer, you're doing it. As it stands right now, I have serious doubts when the game actually does come out that you'll even give it a fair shake and judge it on it's own merits. I've got my concerns too, but what I fear is all I'll expect to see is the hate for it like that which was constantly spread on Reddit for 5th edition. Wait for the rules to actually come out. Give it a try to see how all the wibbly bits work, then share your tables house rules and constructive feedback for all those who are looking for the same type of experience. That's what I'll be doing. Everyone can win.
-
Again I will put forth that the system at its core could work with a few changes.
1. Get rid of the +2 edge limit, it is one of the major issues with this edition.
2. Add some more intuitive edge expenditures to the list.
a) Spend 1-2 edge to add Armor rating to soak/ or cover barrier rating/ higher (3-4 edge) if #3 is used
b) Spend 1-2 edge to add Armor rating to dodge/ or cover barrier rating/ higher (3-4 edge) if #3 is used
3. AV vs DV grants +1 edge per multiple of 4
4. If you are going to punish players for having low essence on healing then allow them to use some form of mechanical skill to heal, since the point of this has always been they are more machine then man. This has been issues to me in all versions of the game.
5. Have some form of coup de gra from the edge system 4-5?
All this can be done from just adding a few lines to the edge chart and removing the edge limit.
And before anyone brings up, well just house rule it. I don't support games where I have to make them work at their core rules.
As for the gatekeeper argument, having been a game-store employee and being friends with most of the owners in my city. I can say that most game are advertised by word of mouth. I have seen very few players come into a game store to look around and just pick up a $50-60 game from a quick page scan. Almost all of them come in either having a friend running the game or someone telling them about it. Most sales of RPGs where to players who came in for that game or had ordered it form us in the first place.
The point is, games are advertised by the current players in the RPG industry. And new players are going to come from the current player base recruiting, not from advertising. If you drive of the current players you will have a hard time replacing them.
The idea about D&D is majorly flawed in that D&D is a major name even outside the RPG community. Even with that 4th edition was a huge flop for WOC, prompting 5th's player inclusion at every development level model. IMHO most other companies would have folded from 4th. But WOC had magic and others to fall back on.
P.S. My players are playing through in this order
1. Silverangel (Done)
2. Mercurial (Done)
3. Dreamchipper (Done)
4. DNA-DOA (In Progress)
5. Harlequin-Physical
6. Queen Euphoria
And yes I have all these books 8)
Don't know if this make me an elitist?
-
My Goodness, what a show. Gonna just keep hammering the party line? I'd love to see something new if you can think of something. Where did Moonshine Fox come from?
As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.
You got something to back this up? I haven't heard anything like this. Where is that being said? It's not on any of the online groups that I am aware of. Locally all I keeping hearing is that while it is said to be in the pipeline no one seems to be getting their hands the QSR as yet. Out on the west coast?
So the new armor rules are just bad, the break with simulationism to that level is to much, and as demonstrated by the play test the edge argument is meaningless or at least appears to be meaningless thus far. I guess we can all cheer in support of bikini armor but lets be really honest that trope has never been a good idea, your whole argument on yay we can wear whatever is just silly. Anyone on who's read the 5e books knows Sleeping Tiger has been the prefer armor sense it came out. The reason for that is obvious it's good everything and everyone. So it's not like we haven't been doing that for basically every recent edition. Even the a decent chunk of the demo team agrees with that and has said so on here in this thread.
The same can be said for str and melee weapons, it would be better to be honest and simply remove strength from the game, just make unarmed damage come off body. It'll save Players used to the past edition from making the poor choice of wasting resources on a meaningless attribute.
Next the action economy. We can argue about damage and armor until we hit page 400 , but here is the truth. NPC are going to go more, considerably more. Why? Because fights aren't going to be decided in the first two passes and cleaned up in the third as we are used to. As is intended by the above armor changes PCs are gonna take more damage. Which means the game is going to be more deadly. Those are facts of life under 6e, as shown from the released material.
Next healing, So healing has changed, I don't know the full extent, apparently its been capped to some number of times per day per type? Also from what has been said magic healing has been Nerfed into oblivion due to the needing something like 3 hits for one level change. That was the numbers given that i recall on here.
Finally Edge. I don't really know or understand what the designers intended with Edge. It refreshes every conflict? But the ability gain it per turn is limited to 2 a number that is apparently just arbitrarily fixed? It replaces penalties but it's tactically generated? Its uses are ether meaningless at one die, or insanity at 5 points, giving us back wonder of the old Storyteller problem. The better your character's pool is the more likely they are screw up epicly. I'd call it paradox, but it's clearly 6e is betting the whole house of cards on this mechanic. So how comfortable are you guys with edge? Do you really think the player base isn't gonna miss the ability to re-roll on the critical rolls more?
Personally on edge I just don't know. I can say I strongly dislike what i have seen so far. So this is where I am at. Nothing said so far has made any meaningful impact on those positions.
-
Part of the edge problem is if your entire system is based around it and players don’t buy in like they have edge 1 they are cut off from the mechanic that theoretically makes the game work. You can’t both have a core mechanic that makes a system worn and have it optional.
-
My Goodness, what a show. Gonna just keep hammering the party line? I'd love to see something new if you can think of something. Where did Moonshine Fox come from?
Ohio.
Been around a while, even made the 5th edition character sheet portfolio. I just didn’t comment much for a while do to the math-run crunch of 5th turning off my groups to the game, something I’m looking forward to changing with the new edition.
-
books already in print, not much use now unfortunately.
I will say I think Banshee's a good guy and his heart is in the right place.
(I'm trying to give kudos whenever I can as the freelancers tend to be the ones eating all the shit for Catalyst's mis-steps and that's not fair imho).
thanks ... doing what I can when I can
-
....I guess we can all cheer in support of bikini armor....
Yay bikini armor!!!!
;D
-
If I knew how to post images I’d post Frankie from one piece.
-
Classy armored swimsuit right here.
(https://www.belovedshirts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/borat-one-piece-swimsuit-high-legged-ready-to-ship-from-beloved.jpg)
-
My Goodness, what a show. Gonna just keep hammering the party line? I'd love to see something new if you can think of something. Where did Moonshine Fox come from?
As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.
You got something to back this up? I haven't heard anything like this. Where is that being said? It's not on any of the online groups that I am aware of. Locally all I keeping hearing is that while it is said to be in the pipeline no one seems to be getting their hands the QSR as yet. Out on the west coast?
Here's the reviews I've seen so far.
6th World Box Set Play Experience (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29452.0)
Meeple Mountain (https://www.meeplemountain.com/articles/first-impressions-shadowrun-sixth-world-beginner-box/)
EN World (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6292-Shadowrun-Sixth-World-Beginner-Box-Review)
GeekDad (https://geekdad.com/2019/06/back-in-the-shadows-again-shadowrun-sixth-world-beginner-box-and-book-previews/)
GeeksAGoGo (https://www.geeksagogo.com/single-post/2019/06/21/Shadowrun-6th-World-Beginner-Box-Reviewed--A-Great-Start-for-a-New-Edition)
-
The reviews I've read so far sound like they are pretty decent and are sure to attract new players (which is the goal of every game). The only real complaints I'm hearing are printing errors (which is, unfortunately, pretty common), and folks that just don't want anything to change.
I think its fair to say players don't want things to change for the worse, or to change without making a meaningful positive impact; they don't want change that takes away from the enjoyment of play, or excessively alter certain basics of the game (both in theme and in playstyle) that, by and large, have been very common and enjoyed. Change that fixes problems, that improves the flow of the game, fixes imbalances, makes the game more readily accessible and understandable, that improves immersion, that reinforces the uniqueness of the setting is to be welcomed.
I'm open to good change. I'm happy to think of a two roll resolution system. Heck, I wish it could be one. I'd be ok if the bucket of d6 were dumped all together, for any resolution system that kept success rolling in the range of 1-3 dice rolled, percentile, d20, or whatever.
-
I have read most of these reviews and would say most come down to new players may like this.
The one that truly when into the rules, made some off the cuff statements about 5th that where not entirely true or very over blown.
This was called out in the responses.
On to more productive talk another idea accrued to me.
How about for every 2 points from AV-DV adds a die to attack roll or dodge.
This would simulate the effect of armor.
-
We already ran math on Action Economy before, showing it's very subjective as to how 'borked' it is. Asides from 'let's throw 40+ iniative around' people, it's not as badly twisted as claimed, and the Minor/Major system actually lets the augmented pick between an extra attack and more tactical options. All in all it's subjective as to how good/bad the new system is. Meanwhile, Edge Economy is indeed up but the benefits per point are smaller, making it less of a '7 Edge player can easily outdo the 2 Edge player whenever it matters the most', but none of y'all mention that.
I see a lot of soak, armor and damage complaints combined, which ignore the fact these are a combination that sum up to, as already discussed before, less 'either you're massively armored or the big toys oneshot you', making combat more tactical and less shock-and-awe. They're pointed out as single negative points, but the bigger picture and the math run to show it's not as bad is simply tossed aside. Frag, the second thing I did with SRM was save up for a Barrett 122, so I could try to one-shot the heavy opponents, so they couldn't one-shot me. I wiped out an entire squad of PR6 mooks in a single attack in Dragon Song 1, while my brother one-shot a lot of heavy encounters simply by overcasting and spellshaping an AoE spell. If you throw that at a player group, they'd also get butchered. So I for one welcome our new less-deviation damage overlords.
Y'all talk about the 'core playerbase not liking stuff' and risk of gatekeeping, yet at the same time by treating the 'core playerbase' as a monolith you're basically saying 'all those that disagree with me are obviously not core players'. To add to that, y'all are actually questioning the identity of a lurker who's been around longer than half of y'all, all because they dare to disagree with you and stopped lurking to combat the negativity spiral. (If postcount matters so much, what makes me then?) Heck, y'all can't even agree if SR6 is too Pink Mohawk or too Black Trenchcoat, so what is this about one opinion?
On top of that, y'all are so eager to claim playtesters were ignored and demand a player survey, but ignore the well-known fact that it was playtesters that went 'hey, how about you merge the combat advantage system with the edge system', playtesters went 'hey, how about you add status effects to make those things more explicit', and that obviously there also were plenty of playtesters that love the new mechanics otherwise CGL wouldn't have gone with it. This is not 'we toss it down and that's it', this is 'we try things, evolve things, and eventually we make decisions that obviously not everybody agrees with'.
Speaking of the writing process: First there were attacks on the writers for 'not knowing what makes shadowrun shadowrun' and none of y'all disagreed with that, then suddenly people go 'writers are cool, let's blame catalyst', a 180 so sudden it gave me whiplash and dumpshock.
There's complaint after complaint about the 'lack of quality control', meanwhile the errata team literally got the book weeks ago so they can go through it and provide fresh insight into what might have slipped during the changes during development, so that this time around CGL can be on top of things with the errata process. Frag, I'm actually jealous of the errata team because whenever I check Who's Online, I see constant activity of "Nothing, or nothing you can see", aka they're actually doing something meaningful while I'm stuck speculating. All I was able to do was provide some feedback to the Beginner Box.
And on top of all of that, we had several topics discussing positive feedback and reviews from those that played the game. Heck, y'all participated in those. Yet when I dare reference those, multiple people thought it was necessary to pretend I'm making it up. Let me reiterate: y'all participated in those topics, but me referencing them suddenly means I'm full of it.
Given how CGL isn't paying me for this, I don't see any reason why I'd respond to your Beginner Box data demands while at the same time y'all's default mode is 'MC is full of it'. I already received a (well-deserved) official warning here and I don't intend to get a second one. So for now I'm just going to try to survive a false heatwave, prepare a Beginner Box session, and work on some ideas I have for SR6. If anyone wants Beginner Box info, just PM me some requests and I'll see what I'm comfortable sharing (can't just copy the entire thing or JM Hardy will extract me for re-education).
See you in the shadows, chummers
-
Personally, fights getting decided by "who gets the jump on whom" always seemed pretty realistic to me. While a frantic, back-and-forth fight that lasts an entire minute in-game, where resources are gained and spent, would be exciting and dramatic, I'm the sort of player who prefers the satisfaction of taking out/bypassing a dangerous obstacle through careful planning. Though presumably, spending Edge to improve sneaking/social skills also exist in SR6, and can be used to avoid fights too.
I've got three other things to say about this:
1) I'm okay with abstracting stuff that'd be confusing/boring to track, but not when it breaks immersion (if anyone ends up with, "I do this a few times in a row purely to refill my Edge meter so I can spend it all on something unrelated later"). Though since I don't know all the rules yet, I'm willing to wait and see how everything fits in to everything else.
2) Bringing in new players with hype and a simplified system sounds sensible; then, adding crunchy complexity in a supplement to make it less abstracted will appeal to both people coming over from older editions, and new players who've got a handle on the simple core setup. Again, let's wait and see. (Either way, I'm still interested in the plot & setting books)
3) Because of an RPG De-motivational poster linked somewhere earlier, I noticed an applicable one: http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/change.html][url]http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/change.html (http://[url)[/url]
-
Classy armored swimsuit right here.
(https://www.belovedshirts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/borat-one-piece-swimsuit-high-legged-ready-to-ship-from-beloved.jpg)
Nightmares for life.
-
We already ran math on Action Economy before, showing it's very subjective as to how 'borked' it is. Asides from 'let's throw 40+ iniative around' people, it's not as badly twisted as claimed, and the Minor/Major system actually lets the augmented pick between an extra attack and more tactical options. All in all it's subjective as to how good/bad the new system is. Meanwhile, Edge Economy is indeed up but the benefits per point are smaller, making it less of a '7 Edge player can easily outdo the 2 Edge player whenever it matters the most', but none of y'all mention that.
I see a lot of soak, armor and damage complaints combined, which ignore the fact these are a combination that sum up to, as already discussed before, less 'either you're massively armored or the big toys oneshot you', making combat more tactical and less shock-and-awe. They're pointed out as single negative points, but the bigger picture and the math run to show it's not as bad is simply tossed aside. Frag, the second thing I did with SRM was save up for a Barrett 122, so I could try to one-shot the heavy opponents, so they couldn't one-shot me. I wiped out an entire squad of PR6 mooks in a single attack in Dragon Song 1, while my brother one-shot a lot of heavy encounters simply by overcasting and spellshaping an AoE spell. If you throw that at a player group, they'd also get butchered. So I for one welcome our new less-deviation damage overlords.
Y'all talk about the 'core playerbase not liking stuff' and risk of gatekeeping, yet at the same time by treating the 'core playerbase' as a monolith you're basically saying 'all those that disagree with me are obviously not core players'. To add to that, y'all are actually questioning the identity of a lurker who's been around longer than half of y'all, all because they dare to disagree with you and stopped lurking to combat the negativity spiral. (If postcount matters so much, what makes me then?) Heck, y'all can't even agree if SR6 is too Pink Mohawk or too Black Trenchcoat, so what is this about one opinion?
On top of that, y'all are so eager to claim playtesters were ignored and demand a player survey, but ignore the well-known fact that it was playtesters that went 'hey, how about you merge the combat advantage system with the edge system', playtesters went 'hey, how about you add status effects to make those things more explicit', and that obviously there also were plenty of playtesters that love the new mechanics otherwise CGL wouldn't have gone with it. This is not 'we toss it down and that's it', this is 'we try things, evolve things, and eventually we make decisions that obviously not everybody agrees with'.
Speaking of the writing process: First there were attacks on the writers for 'not knowing what makes shadowrun shadowrun' and none of y'all disagreed with that, then suddenly people go 'writers are cool, let's blame catalyst', a 180 so sudden it gave me whiplash and dumpshock.
There's complaint after complaint about the 'lack of quality control', meanwhile the errata team literally got the book weeks ago so they can go through it and provide fresh insight into what might have slipped during the changes during development, so that this time around CGL can be on top of things with the errata process. Frag, I'm actually jealous of the errata team because whenever I check Who's Online, I see constant activity of "Nothing, or nothing you can see", aka they're actually doing something meaningful while I'm stuck speculating. All I was able to do was provide some feedback to the Beginner Box.
And on top of all of that, we had several topics discussing positive feedback and reviews from those that played the game. Heck, y'all participated in those. Yet when I dare reference those, multiple people thought it was necessary to pretend I'm making it up. Let me reiterate: y'all participated in those topics, but me referencing them suddenly means I'm full of it.
Given how CGL isn't paying me for this, I don't see any reason why I'd respond to your Beginner Box data demands while at the same time y'all's default mode is 'MC is full of it'. I already received a (well-deserved) official warning here and I don't intend to get a second one. So for now I'm just going to try to survive a false heatwave, prepare a Beginner Box session, and work on some ideas I have for SR6. If anyone wants Beginner Box info, just PM me some requests and I'll see what I'm comfortable sharing (can't just copy the entire thing or JM Hardy will extract me for re-education).
See you in the shadows, chummers
Goodness Chandra that's solid wall of text. Please put me back on your Ignore list.
I saw your "math on the Action Economy", and the only thing it proved was my point.
Do you recall when turn 2 started? Yeah that was the part proved my point.
Anyways when you get done telling us all how terrible we are, and how everything we are doing is wrong please let me know.
Until then please enjoy your shade, and your demo! I hope it goes great!
-
My Goodness, what a show. Gonna just keep hammering the party line? I'd love to see something new if you can think of something. Where did Moonshine Fox come from?
Ohio.
Been around a while, even made the 5th edition character sheet portfolio. I just didn’t comment much for a while do to the math-run crunch of 5th turning off my groups to the game, something I’m looking forward to changing with the new edition.
Good to know, Welcome back!
-
My Goodness, what a show. Gonna just keep hammering the party line? I'd love to see something new if you can think of something. Where did Moonshine Fox come from?
As for sounds from people who actually played: We also got a lot of positive reactions from people who tried out the Box. So all in all I'd say it's too early to judge or let things scare us.
You got something to back this up? I haven't heard anything like this. Where is that being said? It's not on any of the online groups that I am aware of. Locally all I keeping hearing is that while it is said to be in the pipeline no one seems to be getting their hands the QSR as yet. Out on the west coast?
Here's the reviews I've seen so far.
6th World Box Set Play Experience (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29452.0)
Meeple Mountain (https://www.meeplemountain.com/articles/first-impressions-shadowrun-sixth-world-beginner-box/)
EN World (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6292-Shadowrun-Sixth-World-Beginner-Box-Review)
GeekDad (https://geekdad.com/2019/06/back-in-the-shadows-again-shadowrun-sixth-world-beginner-box-and-book-previews/)
GeeksAGoGo (https://www.geeksagogo.com/single-post/2019/06/21/Shadowrun-6th-World-Beginner-Box-Reviewed--A-Great-Start-for-a-New-Edition)
So lets talk about this.
The group picked up the new Edge system quickly and loved it. There were times I forgot to give edge and the players reminded me. I wish there were more circumstances to give edge. The group loved that dynamic. It felt like the Edge system was put on top of the existing 5e rules system. That is a good thing, see baby with bath water above.
The group had some issue the whole AR versus DR mechanic. There was some debate of why Rude would even use a sword if his pistol was better, until Yu tried to steal it, it was better than his pistol. I am trying hard to like this mechanic. It simplifies combat and plays to edge. It's hard to get away from my simulation roots at times I guess. The teenagers love it so far, with the exception of sword.
So apparently the teenagers love it, well with perhaps the exception of melee. Good to know.
There’s so much to talk about in this box, and that’s a good thing; it’s overflowing with content. In some cases it borders on excessive, but it’s easy to imagine a new player poring over these pages for weeks to soak up all the details. One of the things that crops up again and again in perusing the box’s contents is just how consistently excellent the tone is. Though the setting can be grim at times, the authors know just when to lighten the mood with a joke. Little bits of practical advice are woven throughout: as one example, in a section on how many words can be realistically said in a single combat round, the solution is to simply time what the player wants to say. That’s a pretty useful tip for any GM, let alone a new one, and including it in a beginner box indicates that Catalyst has put a lot of thought into the kinds of things that might help out novices.
The phrase over flowing with content. If people can't handle the QSR rules how well do you think they are gonna do with the CRB?
"Still, for an introductory package, it’s nice to have access to a pretty significant portion of the rules, even if there are a few points where the writers have admitted that the information is incomplete."
Full points for being upfront.
EN World (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6292-Shadowrun-Sixth-World-Beginner-Box-Review)
So Enworld's review from Abstruse is probably the most en-depth, not surprising given Enworld.
The four pre-generated player characters are interesting, making a good mix but also having a lot of room to grow. There’s Frostburn, the Ork Combat Mage; Yu, the Elf Covert Ops Specialist/Face; Rude, the Troll Street Samurai (who actually doesn’t have much cyberware); and Zipfile, the Dwarf Decker. While I haven’t seen the character generation rules yet, none of the characters seem to suffer from the terrible unoptimized builds of other editions, so they’re actually playable as they are without tweaking. Each character has a single-page character sheet with all the info you need to run them. Yes, the character sheets are one page. Yes, for all the characters. That’s how streamlined the game’s gotten.
But this statement alone kills it for me. It is completely internally inconsistent, if you don't have access to the Gen rules then you cannot tell if those characters have good builds or not, at that point I can't take this seriously at all. A street Sam that has no wear is at best questionable, right out of the gate. Further they don't touch on any of the other major concerns echoed by the community.
GeekDad (https://geekdad.com/2019/06/back-in-the-shadows-again-shadowrun-sixth-world-beginner-box-and-book-previews/)
Erik Stanfill from Geek Dad, Full credit for having the best quality pictures in any of the reviews we discussed so far, does a nice job of laying out SR for newbies, and tell parent's not let little kids play. Nicely done Geek Dad. Makes good and repeated use of the word Abstraction, doesn't really have meaningful insight and doesn't address any of my concerns. Does talk about playing and for basic review does fairly nice job.
GeeksAGoGo (https://www.geeksagogo.com/single-post/2019/06/21/Shadowrun-6th-World-Beginner-Box-Reviewed--A-Great-Start-for-a-New-Edition)
William Paprocki this a guy who seems like they have some sense of humor and looks like he's played a game for SR or two, just not 6e.
He does win the award for most confusion explanation of edge options of all the reviews "allow for things like buy a single re-roll or add to the outcome of 1 die"
I don't know if that consistent with what we know or not, honestly. "add to the outcome of 1 die"? Where the other reviews pretty much read like boiler plate language, this one is a little more human, and does a nice job of selling the QSR in terms of value for money. But he doesn't actually discuss having run the rules.
So that's where I am at with them. I didn't learn anything from what said (Except that the teenager love it baring melee of course), and other then the on site review only one them even raised an issue that concerned me about the QSR. As written all of these lead you to believe that everything in there will be compatible with CRB. Which we know is not true. That leaves me disappointed in the whole concept.
-
Part of the edge problem is if your entire system is based around it and players don’t buy in like they have edge 1 they are cut off from the mechanic that theoretically makes the game work. You can’t both have a core mechanic that makes a system worn and have it optional.
...I didn't like the introduction of it in 4E as essentially, it is a fixed "luck attribute". At least with Karma Pool in previous editions (which was more limited) it started small and grew as the character did.
-
You start talking about a core playerbase, you get into dangerous waters where you become elitist and think that you know what's best for the game, no matter what anyone else likes.
This ain't it, chief. The people in my group don't like it, almost all of the people on this forum don't like it, apparently the people on reddit don't like it either and I haven't checked but I would bet my own life that the people on 4chan HATE it. Take any group of people currently playing Shadowrun and you will find that the majority of them dislike the changes implemented for 6e. There's no way around it, CG dun goofed this time.
As it stands right now, I have serious doubts when the game actually does come out that you'll even give it a fair shake and judge it on it's own merits.
I don't have to eat shit to know that it tastes like shit.
-
Again I will put forth that the system at its core could work with a few changes.
1. Get rid of the +2 edge limit, it is one of the major issues with this edition.
2. Add some more intuitive edge expenditures to the list.
a) Spend 1-2 edge to add Armor rating to soak/ or cover barrier rating/ higher (3-4 edge) if #3 is used
b) Spend 1-2 edge to add Armor rating to dodge/ or cover barrier rating/ higher (3-4 edge) if #3 is used
3. AV vs DV grants +1 edge per multiple of 4
4. If you are going to punish players for having low essence on healing then allow them to use some form of mechanical skill to heal, since the point of this has always been they are more machine then man. This has been issues to me in all versions of the game.
5. Have some form of coup de gra from the edge system 4-5?
All this can be done from just adding a few lines to the edge chart and removing the edge limit.
And before anyone brings up, well just house rule it. I don't support games where I have to make them work at their core rules.
These are excellent ideas. Plus, stuff like additional edge expenditures can also be "patched on" in a supplement, without having to eviscerate the core rules to "fix" them.
I also like the idea of adding Armor to the Soak roll while also increasing the additional Damage per Net by one. It makes armor a bit more usefull (whithout going in the direction of SR5, where armor was way too important and poorly balanced), but it also makes quick ambush takedowns a realistic option again, at least against weaker targets. Taking more than one Attack is the difference between some doofus guard or office drone calling for backup or not.
And yes, it´s scary and deadly when players can get one-shot by a skilled sniper, but that´s just gritty realism and mostly a psychological option for GMs - as long as you don´t seriously hate up your PCs, you don´t snuff them out like this (or at least not without giving a proper hint to avoid the trap).
As a side note: Is this stupid 2 Edge Limit actually confirmed? And if yes, is it for a single Action or for a single Initiative Pass or for the whole combat round? Because man, would that be idiotic, especially the last option: "Oh, you already got your 2 Edge for this round? Well, now cover and armor really doesn´t mean a thing anymore :P"
-
We already ran math on Action Economy before, showing it's very subjective as to how 'borked' it is. Asides from 'let's throw 40+ iniative around' people, it's not as badly twisted as claimed, and the Minor/Major system actually lets the augmented pick between an extra attack and more tactical options. All in all it's subjective as to how good/bad the new system is. Meanwhile, Edge Economy is indeed up but the benefits per point are smaller, making it less of a '7 Edge player can easily outdo the 2 Edge player whenever it matters the most', but none of y'all mention that.
I see a lot of soak, armor and damage complaints combined, which ignore the fact these are a combination that sum up to, as already discussed before, less 'either you're massively armored or the big toys oneshot you', making combat more tactical and less shock-and-awe. They're pointed out as single negative points, but the bigger picture and the math run to show it's not as bad is simply tossed aside. Frag, the second thing I did with SRM was save up for a Barrett 122, so I could try to one-shot the heavy opponents, so they couldn't one-shot me. I wiped out an entire squad of PR6 mooks in a single attack in Dragon Song 1, while my brother one-shot a lot of heavy encounters simply by overcasting and spellshaping an AoE spell. If you throw that at a player group, they'd also get butchered. So I for one welcome our new less-deviation damage overlords.
Y'all talk about the 'core playerbase not liking stuff' and risk of gatekeeping, yet at the same time by treating the 'core playerbase' as a monolith you're basically saying 'all those that disagree with me are obviously not core players'. To add to that, y'all are actually questioning the identity of a lurker who's been around longer than half of y'all, all because they dare to disagree with you and stopped lurking to combat the negativity spiral. (If postcount matters so much, what makes me then?) Heck, y'all can't even agree if SR6 is too Pink Mohawk or too Black Trenchcoat, so what is this about one opinion?
On top of that, y'all are so eager to claim playtesters were ignored and demand a player survey, but ignore the well-known fact that it was playtesters that went 'hey, how about you merge the combat advantage system with the edge system', playtesters went 'hey, how about you add status effects to make those things more explicit', and that obviously there also were plenty of playtesters that love the new mechanics otherwise CGL wouldn't have gone with it. This is not 'we toss it down and that's it', this is 'we try things, evolve things, and eventually we make decisions that obviously not everybody agrees with'.
Speaking of the writing process: First there were attacks on the writers for 'not knowing what makes shadowrun shadowrun' and none of y'all disagreed with that, then suddenly people go 'writers are cool, let's blame catalyst', a 180 so sudden it gave me whiplash and dumpshock.
There's complaint after complaint about the 'lack of quality control', meanwhile the errata team literally got the book weeks ago so they can go through it and provide fresh insight into what might have slipped during the changes during development, so that this time around CGL can be on top of things with the errata process. Frag, I'm actually jealous of the errata team because whenever I check Who's Online, I see constant activity of "Nothing, or nothing you can see", aka they're actually doing something meaningful while I'm stuck speculating. All I was able to do was provide some feedback to the Beginner Box.
And on top of all of that, we had several topics discussing positive feedback and reviews from those that played the game. Heck, y'all participated in those. Yet when I dare reference those, multiple people thought it was necessary to pretend I'm making it up. Let me reiterate: y'all participated in those topics, but me referencing them suddenly means I'm full of it.
Given how CGL isn't paying me for this, I don't see any reason why I'd respond to your Beginner Box data demands while at the same time y'all's default mode is 'MC is full of it'. I already received a (well-deserved) official warning here and I don't intend to get a second one. So for now I'm just going to try to survive a false heatwave, prepare a Beginner Box session, and work on some ideas I have for SR6. If anyone wants Beginner Box info, just PM me some requests and I'll see what I'm comfortable sharing (can't just copy the entire thing or JM Hardy will extract me for re-education).
See you in the shadows, chummers
+1
-
We already ran math on Action Economy before, showing it's very subjective as to how 'borked' it is. Asides from 'let's throw 40+ iniative around' people, it's not as badly twisted as claimed, and the Minor/Major system actually lets the augmented pick between an extra attack and more tactical options. All in all it's subjective as to how good/bad the new system is. Meanwhile, Edge Economy is indeed up but the benefits per point are smaller, making it less of a '7 Edge player can easily outdo the 2 Edge player whenever it matters the most', but none of y'all mention that.
I see a lot of soak, armor and damage complaints combined, which ignore the fact these are a combination that sum up to, as already discussed before, less 'either you're massively armored or the big toys oneshot you', making combat more tactical and less shock-and-awe. They're pointed out as single negative points, but the bigger picture and the math run to show it's not as bad is simply tossed aside. Frag, the second thing I did with SRM was save up for a Barrett 122, so I could try to one-shot the heavy opponents, so they couldn't one-shot me. I wiped out an entire squad of PR6 mooks in a single attack in Dragon Song 1, while my brother one-shot a lot of heavy encounters simply by overcasting and spellshaping an AoE spell. If you throw that at a player group, they'd also get butchered. So I for one welcome our new less-deviation damage overlords.
Y'all talk about the 'core playerbase not liking stuff' and risk of gatekeeping, yet at the same time by treating the 'core playerbase' as a monolith you're basically saying 'all those that disagree with me are obviously not core players'. To add to that, y'all are actually questioning the identity of a lurker who's been around longer than half of y'all, all because they dare to disagree with you and stopped lurking to combat the negativity spiral. (If postcount matters so much, what makes me then?) Heck, y'all can't even agree if SR6 is too Pink Mohawk or too Black Trenchcoat, so what is this about one opinion?
On top of that, y'all are so eager to claim playtesters were ignored and demand a player survey, but ignore the well-known fact that it was playtesters that went 'hey, how about you merge the combat advantage system with the edge system', playtesters went 'hey, how about you add status effects to make those things more explicit', and that obviously there also were plenty of playtesters that love the new mechanics otherwise CGL wouldn't have gone with it. This is not 'we toss it down and that's it', this is 'we try things, evolve things, and eventually we make decisions that obviously not everybody agrees with'.
Speaking of the writing process: First there were attacks on the writers for 'not knowing what makes shadowrun shadowrun' and none of y'all disagreed with that, then suddenly people go 'writers are cool, let's blame catalyst', a 180 so sudden it gave me whiplash and dumpshock.
There's complaint after complaint about the 'lack of quality control', meanwhile the errata team literally got the book weeks ago so they can go through it and provide fresh insight into what might have slipped during the changes during development, so that this time around CGL can be on top of things with the errata process. Frag, I'm actually jealous of the errata team because whenever I check Who's Online, I see constant activity of "Nothing, or nothing you can see", aka they're actually doing something meaningful while I'm stuck speculating. All I was able to do was provide some feedback to the Beginner Box.
And on top of all of that, we had several topics discussing positive feedback and reviews from those that played the game. Heck, y'all participated in those. Yet when I dare reference those, multiple people thought it was necessary to pretend I'm making it up. Let me reiterate: y'all participated in those topics, but me referencing them suddenly means I'm full of it.
Given how CGL isn't paying me for this, I don't see any reason why I'd respond to your Beginner Box data demands while at the same time y'all's default mode is 'MC is full of it'. I already received a (well-deserved) official warning here and I don't intend to get a second one. So for now I'm just going to try to survive a false heatwave, prepare a Beginner Box session, and work on some ideas I have for SR6. If anyone wants Beginner Box info, just PM me some requests and I'll see what I'm comfortable sharing (can't just copy the entire thing or JM Hardy will extract me for re-education).
See you in the shadows, chummers
+1
Well that makes things pretty clear doesn’t it lol.
-
Again I will put forth that the system at its core could work with a few changes.
1. Get rid of the +2 edge limit, it is one of the major issues with this edition.
2. Add some more intuitive edge expenditures to the list.
a) Spend 1-2 edge to add Armor rating to soak/ or cover barrier rating/ higher (3-4 edge) if #3 is used
b) Spend 1-2 edge to add Armor rating to dodge/ or cover barrier rating/ higher (3-4 edge) if #3 is used
3. AV vs DV grants +1 edge per multiple of 4
4. If you are going to punish players for having low essence on healing then allow them to use some form of mechanical skill to heal, since the point of this has always been they are more machine then man. This has been issues to me in all versions of the game.
5. Have some form of coup de gra from the edge system 4-5?
All this can be done from just adding a few lines to the edge chart and removing the edge limit.
And before anyone brings up, well just house rule it. I don't support games where I have to make them work at their core rules.
These are excellent ideas. Plus, stuff like additional edge expenditures can also be "patched on" in a supplement, without having to eviscerate the core rules to "fix" them.
I also like the idea of adding Armor to the Soak roll while also increasing the additional Damage per Net by one. It makes armor a bit more usefull (whithout going in the direction of SR5, where armor was way too important and poorly balanced), but it also makes quick ambush takedowns a realistic option again, at least against weaker targets. Taking more than one Attack is the difference between some doofus guard or office drone calling for backup or not.
And yes, it´s scary and deadly when players can get one-shot by a skilled sniper, but that´s just gritty realism and mostly a psychological option for GMs - as long as you don´t seriously hate up your PCs, you don´t snuff them out like this (or at least not without giving a proper hint to avoid the trap).
As a side note: Is this stupid 2 Edge Limit actually confirmed? And if yes, is it for a single Action or for a single Initiative Pass or for the whole combat round? Because man, would that be idiotic, especially the last option: "Oh, you already got your 2 Edge for this round? Well, now cover and armor really doesn´t mean a thing anymore :P"
entire combat turn I believe
-
(Addiction cigarettes Level 3)
Addiction Character- cannot earn or spend Edge in any form while suffering withdrawal and takes a –2 dice pool penalty to all
tests, increasing by 1 per addiction period passed. (Level 1: 1 week)
Apparently not getting your of smokes is really hard on you in 6e.
-
Part of the edge problem is if your entire system is based around it and players don’t buy in like they have edge 1 they are cut off from the mechanic that theoretically makes the game work. You can’t both have a core mechanic that makes a system worn and have it optional.
...I didn't like the introduction of it in 4E as essentially, it is a fixed "luck attribute". At least with Karma Pool in previous editions (which was more limited) it started small and grew as the character did.
Yeah I never liked the edge system but the game itself wasn’t balanced around it. The karma system I preferred but broke on high karma characters.
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
-
There's complaint after complaint about the 'lack of quality control', meanwhile the errata team literally got the book weeks ago so they can go through it and provide fresh insight into what might have slipped during the changes during development, so that this time around CGL can be on top of things with the errata process. Frag, I'm actually jealous of the errata team because whenever I check Who's Online, I see constant activity of "Nothing, or nothing you can see", aka they're actually doing something meaningful while I'm stuck speculating. All I was able to do was provide some feedback to the Beginner Box.
Don't be jealous of the errata process, time to rip the bandaid off.
I've been on the errata team since it's inception and worked as diligently as possible (along with other talented and motivated team members) to provide fixes and minor adjustments to 5e to make it more playable.
Looking back our heyday was when Patrick was running the show, we got some small attention from Jason (the line developer), enough that he would look at our work occasionally. I think that had more to do with Patrick than Jason however because as soon as Patrick left Jason stopped responding as far as I can tell.
We have tons of 5e errata that's been proposed but never reviewed.
So much that eventually, a few months before 6e was announced I threatened to quit if Jason didn't do something about his lack of engagement. A few other errata team members did as well.
Thankfully that got Jason's attention and he put the excellent Jayde Moon in charge.
As the errata team got excited and started working hard again 6e was announced, taking all of us by surprise.
Then a few of us got invited to the hot fix team for 6e.
Unfortunately it was already at the printers, so whatever work we did would not make it into the first printing.
I can't talk about the content of 6e or what we saw due to NDAs so don't ask.
For complete transparency I was removed from the 6e hotfix team due to an offhand comment I made confirming a demo play detail. I'm ok with that, it's within Catalyst's right to have whomever they want on their errata team.
However it's clear to me that errata was an afterthought for 6e as it was (or worse actually) for 5e errata.
So your comment above is totally offbase Chandra, as usual you take the Catalyst apologist line, which at least makes you consistent.
I think 6e started with good intentions that were needed (simplification) but ended up going down a rabbit-hole of inanity (the edge mechanic) that has divorced the rules from any relation to reality.
Time will tell if this is borne out by player experiences, you should all weigh comments here against what you want out of Shadowrun and your first play tests at your own table.
However I know that ours, with our focus on realistic outcomes, detail and authenticity will stick with 5e.
gluck!
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
And with 4th and 5th it tended to get horded for a “just in case” moment since it had such a slow recharge time. Having it refresh a lot more often may help with people not leaving it sitting useless.
Granted it was fun in 3rd having 20 karma pool to just throw around at everything.
-
There's complaint after complaint about the 'lack of quality control', meanwhile the errata team literally got the book weeks ago so they can go through it and provide fresh insight into what might have slipped during the changes during development, so that this time around CGL can be on top of things with the errata process. Frag, I'm actually jealous of the errata team because whenever I check Who's Online, I see constant activity of "Nothing, or nothing you can see", aka they're actually doing something meaningful while I'm stuck speculating. All I was able to do was provide some feedback to the Beginner Box.
Don't be jealous of the errata process, time to rip the bandaid off.
I've been on the errata team since it's inception and worked as diligently as possible (along with other talented and motivated team members) to provide fixes and minor adjustments to 5e to make it more playable.
Looking back our heyday was when Patrick was running the show, we got some small attention from Jason (the line developer), enough that he would look at our work occasionally. I think that had more to do with Patrick than Jason however because as soon as Patrick left Jason stopped responding as far as I can tell.
We have tons of 5e errata that's been proposed but never reviewed.
So much that eventually, a few months before 6e was announced I threatened to quit if Jason didn't do something about his lack of engagement. A few other errata team members did as well.
Thankfully that got Jason's attention and he put the excellent Jayde Moon in charge.
As the errata team got excited and started working hard again 6e was announced, taking all of us by surprise.
Then a few of us got invited to the hot fix team for 6e.
Unfortunately it was already at the printers, so whatever work we did would not make it into the first printing.
I can't talk about the content of 6e or what we saw due to NDAs so don't ask.
For complete transparency I was removed from the 6e hotfix team due to an offhand comment I made confirming a demo play detail. I'm ok with that, it's within Catalyst's right to have whomever they want on their errata team.
However it's clear to me that errata was an afterthought for 6e as it was (or worse actually) for 5e errata.
So your comment above is totally offbase Chandra, as usual you take the Catalyst apologist line, which at least makes you consistent.
I think 6e started with good intentions that were needed (simplification) but ended up going down a rabbit-hole of inanity (the edge mechanic) that has divorced the rules from any relation to reality.
Time will tell if this is borne out by player experiences, you should all weigh comments here against what you want out of Shadowrun and your first play tests at your own table.
However I know that ours, with our focus on realistic outcomes, detail and authenticity will stick with 5e.
gluck!
Ouch.
-
As for Michaels comments.
Action economy. I don’t really get Marcus’s issue entirely but on my side yeah it looks borked. 1. Lack of free actions. Because of this relatively basic actions a player might ask todo become impossible as they get rule blocked by minor/major action bloat. Want to do some basic cinematic run to cover, while drawing a gun and firing off a shot. Nope can’t do it unless you are cybered or something. Combined with needing 4 minors to get a major it oddly devalues initiative dice gains. Yeah cyber dude could do that cinematic thing but it eats into his minors so he can’t attack twice. In fact unless you just stand still and fire you can’t attack twice in most cases. Sure “tactical” uses of minor actions like dodge. Woo freaking boo you spent 3 of your 6 essence so you can do a dance routine 2 more times per turn.
Armor soak. I think everyone has said the math might work out and that there were big issues with 5e in this regard. The problem is it’s thematically borked. And while a back and forth combat can be fun if you vastly out skill the enemies dragging the fight on isn’t a plus. So while one shot kills left and right because big gun x does way too much damage our team sniper who after dying came back as absurd strength swordman being An example are bad it being virtually impossible to one shot with a pistol is almost as bad.
Playtest. Maybe someone said they didn’t listen to them. But I think the ongoing complaint it the playtest group was too small which created a echo chamber. They needed a much bigger set of play testers with a diverse style of play.
Quality control that is both the dice which isnt imo on them but mainly all and I mean all of 5es history biting them in the ass. The quality control on that was epically bad.
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
Yeah I get needing to give humans something but that was a bit extreme.
-
...Want to do some basic cinematic run to cover, while drawing a gun and firing off a shot. Nope can’t do it unless you are cybered or something...
I'm curious what makes you think this.
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
And with 4th and 5th it tended to get horded for a “just in case” moment since it had such a slow recharge time. Having it refresh a lot more often may help with people not leaving it sitting useless.
Granted it was fun in 3rd having 20 karma pool to just throw around at everything.
Outside of edge monsters I generally agree that is how it worked in 4/5e. And this new refreshing system actually sounds good as does generally smaller effects for edge use. From what I’ve heard I like the edge system. Just don’t think it should replace modifiers but be a add on for them as it does a completely inadequate job of reflecting the situation in the narrative.
-
...Want to do some basic cinematic run to cover, while drawing a gun and firing off a shot. Nope can’t do it unless you are cybered or something...
I'm curious what makes you think this.
Major action to draw a weapon reduced to minor with the right gear. Move minor action. Take cover minor action. Shoot major action. That is 3 minors+1major. Normals get 2+1. Im sure if we go through the list of free actions and how they are now minors we can come up with more examples of this. Every previous edition free actions let you move and with a quick draw being out your pistol. 2 simples got you a shot and cover or if taking cover wasn’t an action 2 shots and you just moved into cover. If I wasn’t clear I’m not talking about your move taking you past a corner where you inherently have cover but moving into cover so you can see the enemies be in position to do things next round etc.
Will yelling things to teammates be a minor action now or is speaking some unknown non action thing.
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
-
As for Michaels comments.
Action economy. I don’t really get Marcus’s issue entirely but on my side yeah it looks borked. 1. Lack of free actions. Because of this relatively basic actions a player might ask todo become impossible as they get rule blocked by minor/major action bloat. Want to do some basic cinematic run to cover, while drawing a gun and firing off a shot. Nope can’t do it unless you are cybered or something. Combined with needing 4 minors to get a major it oddly devalues initiative dice gains. Yeah cyber dude could do that cinematic thing but it eats into his minors so he can’t attack twice. In fact unless you just stand still and fire you can’t attack twice in most cases. Sure “tactical” uses of minor actions like dodge. Woo freaking boo you spent 3 of your 6 essence so you can do a dance routine 2 more times per turn.
I'm happy to go clear up any confusion on my point. I'll restate it and you can tell me where I am failing to illustrate it.
So for at-least the last two editions, your average SR combat was won or lost in the first 2 passes. That is to say, combat was very short. Or put another way PCs had a very strong action economy advantage. (IE PCs both went earlier and more often.) As described that won't be the case in 6e.
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
And with 4th and 5th it tended to get horded for a “just in case” moment since it had such a slow recharge time. Having it refresh a lot more often may help with people not leaving it sitting useless.
Granted it was fun in 3rd having 20 karma pool to just throw around at everything.
Outside of edge monsters I generally agree that is how it worked in 4/5e. And this new refreshing system actually sounds good as does generally smaller effects for edge use. From what I’ve heard I like the edge system. Just don’t think it should replace modifiers but be a add on for them as it does a completely inadequate job of reflecting the situation in the narrative.
Maybe, but I’m holding my judgment. I thought the same thing about D&Ds advantage/disadvantage system replacing a lot of bonuses/penalties. Once dice hit the table though it not only reflected those bonuses well, it helped keep add-on bloat to a minimum and (for my group at least) lead to them doing tactics they had previously ignored because the bonus was so small as to be worthless.
-
Classy armored swimsuit right here.
(https://www.belovedshirts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/borat-one-piece-swimsuit-high-legged-ready-to-ship-from-beloved.jpg)
Nightmares for life.
Are those shock frills?
-
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
While I know you are just making a tongue in check comment in the effort of humor ... if you have a GM that enforces this level of detail (or really anything near it) then you have a much bigger problem than the action economy. The system we built the new initiative and action economy around is setup to allow you to streamline and abstract many of the things you are complaining about. just to call attention to one of actions "Take Cover" .. unless the cover is several meters away there is no need to use a move action first.
So your example of the cinematic dive for cover while drawing and firing your pistol is a simple series of Take Cover, Quick Draw and Attack .. just 1 major and 2 minor which anyone not caught flat footed can pull off without any modifications or enhancements
-
I always figured readying a weapon, meant that the weapon was fully stowed. Like your rifles slung across your back and secured, your side arm strapped into place, stuff like that. I figure if you’re already in a combat situation you had your weapon locked and loaded, with ready weapon actions taken place primarily during ambushes.
-
And if for whatever reason you ARE caught with having to choose between making an attack or taking cover, it isn't the disaster it is in 5e to not make an attack in the first round of combat.
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
And with 4th and 5th it tended to get horded for a “just in case” moment since it had such a slow recharge time. Having it refresh a lot more often may help with people not leaving it sitting useless.
Granted it was fun in 3rd having 20 karma pool to just throw around at everything.
Outside of edge monsters I generally agree that is how it worked in 4/5e. And this new refreshing system actually sounds good as does generally smaller effects for edge use. From what I’ve heard I like the edge system. Just don’t think it should replace modifiers but be a add on for them as it does a completely inadequate job of reflecting the situation in the narrative.
Maybe, but I’m holding my judgment. I thought the same thing about D&Ds advantage/disadvantage system replacing a lot of bonuses/penalties. Once dice hit the table though it not only reflected those bonuses well, it helped keep add-on bloat to a minimum and (for my group at least) lead to them doing tactics they had previously ignored because the bonus was so small as to be worthless.
Advantage/disadvantage is a significant penalty depends on the AC or TN to your roll but on average a +5/-5 change. 1 edge is rerolling 1 die. And it’s not even that as it may not come into play if you don’t use it to help in the defense.
-
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
While I know you are just making a tongue in check comment in the effort of humor ... if you have a GM that enforces this level of detail (or really anything near it) then you have a much bigger problem than the action economy. The system we built the new initiative and action economy around is setup to allow you to streamline and abstract many of the things you are complaining about. just to call attention to one of actions "Take Cover" .. unless the cover is several meters away there is no need to use a move action first.
So your example of the cinematic dive for cover while drawing and firing your pistol is a simple series of Take Cover, Quick Draw and Attack .. just 1 major and 2 minor which anyone not caught flat footed can pull off without any modifications or enhancements
The rules work when you ignore the rules isn’t the selling point on the rules you might think it is.
And my example was move to as in the cover isn’t right next to you. Some GMs might say get in cover includes 1/2 your move across a room others won’t.
-
1 edge could equal 1 die rerolled.
it could be 1/2 of the edge required to cancel the opposition's use of edge.
it could be 1/3 of the edge to heal a box of stun.
it could be 1/4 of the edge to heal a box of physical damage.
etc.
In aggregate, a point of edge is no small thing.
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
While I know you are just making a tongue in check comment in the effort of humor ... if you have a GM that enforces this level of detail (or really anything near it) then you have a much bigger problem than the action economy. The system we built the new initiative and action economy around is setup to allow you to streamline and abstract many of the things you are complaining about. just to call attention to one of actions "Take Cover" .. unless the cover is several meters away there is no need to use a move action first.
So your example of the cinematic dive for cover while drawing and firing your pistol is a simple series of Take Cover, Quick Draw and Attack .. just 1 major and 2 minor which anyone not caught flat footed can pull off without any modifications or enhancements
The rules work when you ignore the rules isn’t the selling point on the rules you might think it is.
And my example was move to as in the cover isn’t right next to you. Some GMs might say get in cover includes 1/2 your move across a room others won’t.
Banshee didn't say to ignore the rules. He was saying a GM is probably being a Richard to make you spend an action to move in conjunction with spending an action to take cover.
OTOH if the cover is so far away that you do reasonably have to spend an action moving, then maybe your premise is wrong that an unaugmented, undrugged, un-magicked person should be able to do quite so many things all at once.
To reiterate your original scenario: a cinematic style diving for cover while pulling a gun and shooting it? That's 1 major and (in effect with the right gear) 2 minors. If the cover was so far away you couldn't dive into it without running first, then that's not your example now is it?
-
1 edge could equal 1 die rerolled.
it could be 1/2 of the edge required to cancel the opposition's use of edge.
it could be 1/3 of the edge to heal a box of stun.
it could be 1/4 of the edge to heal a box of physical damage.
etc.
Well one whole die you say, or one whole box of Damage? I'll skip the sarcasm, and just get to the point. Do folks really think they can fine tune the system to a point where one die result will be at all meaningful or one box damage? I just find that while concept to be truly bazaar. To me SR is supposed to be Gritty not Granular. Lastly spending two points to negate one point from the enemy, so we can spend 2 points to stop them from re-rolling one die? That seems like a good idea?
The most likely out come of rolling one more die in SR is just another failure (2/3 of time to be exact). If you re-rolled 3 dice, sure then that is a meaningful shot at something useful. But dropping one point strikes me as a total waste, the odds are not in your favor in the least.
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
And with 4th and 5th it tended to get horded for a “just in case” moment since it had such a slow recharge time. Having it refresh a lot more often may help with people not leaving it sitting useless.
Granted it was fun in 3rd having 20 karma pool to just throw around at everything.
Outside of edge monsters I generally agree that is how it worked in 4/5e. And this new refreshing system actually sounds good as does generally smaller effects for edge use. From what I’ve heard I like the edge system. Just don’t think it should replace modifiers but be a add on for them as it does a completely inadequate job of reflecting the situation in the narrative.
Maybe, but I’m holding my judgment. I thought the same thing about D&Ds advantage/disadvantage system replacing a lot of bonuses/penalties. Once dice hit the table though it not only reflected those bonuses well, it helped keep add-on bloat to a minimum and (for my group at least) lead to them doing tactics they had previously ignored because the bonus was so small as to be worthless.
Advantage/disadvantage is a significant penalty depends on the AC or TN to your roll but on average a +5/-5 change. 1 edge is rerolling 1 die. And it’s not even that as it may not come into play if you don’t use it to help in the defense.
One point of edge is a 33% chance to turn a fail into a hit, or an 84% chance to remove a single glitch, with a 33% chance of that non-glitch to be a success. +/- 5 points is 25% more chance to succeed or fail in D&D, and varies based at target number.
One edge to lessen/not glitch seems like a pretty good spend to me.
-
1 edge could equal 1 die rerolled.
it could be 1/2 of the edge required to cancel the opposition's use of edge.
it could be 1/3 of the edge to heal a box of stun.
it could be 1/4 of the edge to heal a box of physical damage.
etc.
In aggregate, a point of edge is no small thing.
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
While I know you are just making a tongue in check comment in the effort of humor ... if you have a GM that enforces this level of detail (or really anything near it) then you have a much bigger problem than the action economy. The system we built the new initiative and action economy around is setup to allow you to streamline and abstract many of the things you are complaining about. just to call attention to one of actions "Take Cover" .. unless the cover is several meters away there is no need to use a move action first.
So your example of the cinematic dive for cover while drawing and firing your pistol is a simple series of Take Cover, Quick Draw and Attack .. just 1 major and 2 minor which anyone not caught flat footed can pull off without any modifications or enhancements
The rules work when you ignore the rules isn’t the selling point on the rules you might think it is.
And my example was move to as in the cover isn’t right next to you. Some GMs might say get in cover includes 1/2 your move across a room others won’t.
Banshee didn't say to ignore the rules. He was saying a GM is probably being a Richard to make you spend an action to move in conjunction with spending an action to take cover.
OTOH if the cover is so far away that you do reasonably have to spend an action moving, then maybe your premise is wrong that an unaugmented, undrugged, un-magicked person should be able to do quite so many things all at once.
To reiterate your original scenario: a cinematic style diving for cover while pulling a gun and shooting it? That's 1 major and (in effect with the right gear) 2 minors. If the cover was so far away you couldn't dive into it without running first, then that's not your example now is it?
In aggregate yes 1 edge is a very small thing. Because maybe I’ll have enough to do something special isn’t a yes you do it’s a maybe. And if it’s not used at all it does nothing to reflect that the shot is difficult on its own merits.
And yes if the rule is grab cover is an action and move is an action unless grab cover says you can move x meters as part of this action any movement past a trivial amount would most likely be seen as a a separate action by a wide range of non dick GMs. Because that’s how the rules were written. If you want to include non trivial movement up to x meters it should be in the text. Step into cover next to you sure. Run 3 meters across the room to grab cover behind the filing cabinet probably not. And that still seems like something a normal human could pull off in 3 seconds.
The entire point of free actions was to have a mechanic to cover the non stuff or roll it into other actions so it didn’t bog down your actual actions. Like unbuckle, open door, step out of car, draw gun, use door as cover. Sure I can ignore that and will, but that doesn’t make it how the rules are written and it doesn’t make a GM who takes rules a bit more seriously than me a dick. Maybe the people running the live play misstated and there are non actions or something, but removal of free actions or a similar mechanic bogs the action economy down with useless crap by the rules.
But yeah the rules are fine it’s just dick GMs playing it wrong.
-
The old Karma Pool system punishes metahumans severely as they only gained a dice per 20 good karma earned, while humans got one every 10. The sky was the limit, so a upper limit was needed.
Yet, I still prefer that form of progression to what happened with 4Es where you could start maxed out.
And with 4th and 5th it tended to get horded for a “just in case” moment since it had such a slow recharge time. Having it refresh a lot more often may help with people not leaving it sitting useless.
Granted it was fun in 3rd having 20 karma pool to just throw around at everything.
Outside of edge monsters I generally agree that is how it worked in 4/5e. And this new refreshing system actually sounds good as does generally smaller effects for edge use. From what I’ve heard I like the edge system. Just don’t think it should replace modifiers but be a add on for them as it does a completely inadequate job of reflecting the situation in the narrative.
Maybe, but I’m holding my judgment. I thought the same thing about D&Ds advantage/disadvantage system replacing a lot of bonuses/penalties. Once dice hit the table though it not only reflected those bonuses well, it helped keep add-on bloat to a minimum and (for my group at least) lead to them doing tactics they had previously ignored because the bonus was so small as to be worthless.
Advantage/disadvantage is a significant penalty depends on the AC or TN to your roll but on average a +5/-5 change. 1 edge is rerolling 1 die. And it’s not even that as it may not come into play if you don’t use it to help in the defense.
One point of edge is a 33% chance to turn a fail into a hit, or an 84% chance to remove a single glitch, with a 33% chance of that non-glitch to be a success. +/- 5 points is 25% more chance to succeed or fail in D&D, and varies based at target number.
One edge to lessen/not glitch seems like a pretty good spend to me.
D&D is a pass/fail system. Shadowrun is levels of success. A 33% chance to get or remove 1 hit is far less significant. And again if it’s not used in a way to make the shot harder the shot was just as easy as one without penalties so the shot that should be difficult on its own wasn’t.
-
In aggregate yes 1 edge is a very small thing.
1 Edge can add 1 to any die, after you roll. So it'll turn a "4" into a hit. If you're steadily building Edge, one more hit for many of your rolls is fairly solid.
Quick start rules anyway.
-
1 edge could equal 1 die rerolled.
it could be 1/2 of the edge required to cancel the opposition's use of edge.
it could be 1/3 of the edge to heal a box of stun.
it could be 1/4 of the edge to heal a box of physical damage.
etc.
In aggregate, a point of edge is no small thing.
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
While I know you are just making a tongue in check comment in the effort of humor ... if you have a GM that enforces this level of detail (or really anything near it) then you have a much bigger problem than the action economy. The system we built the new initiative and action economy around is setup to allow you to streamline and abstract many of the things you are complaining about. just to call attention to one of actions "Take Cover" .. unless the cover is several meters away there is no need to use a move action first.
So your example of the cinematic dive for cover while drawing and firing your pistol is a simple series of Take Cover, Quick Draw and Attack .. just 1 major and 2 minor which anyone not caught flat footed can pull off without any modifications or enhancements
The rules work when you ignore the rules isn’t the selling point on the rules you might think it is.
And my example was move to as in the cover isn’t right next to you. Some GMs might say get in cover includes 1/2 your move across a room others won’t.
Banshee didn't say to ignore the rules. He was saying a GM is probably being a Richard to make you spend an action to move in conjunction with spending an action to take cover.
OTOH if the cover is so far away that you do reasonably have to spend an action moving, then maybe your premise is wrong that an unaugmented, undrugged, un-magicked person should be able to do quite so many things all at once.
To reiterate your original scenario: a cinematic style diving for cover while pulling a gun and shooting it? That's 1 major and (in effect with the right gear) 2 minors. If the cover was so far away you couldn't dive into it without running first, then that's not your example now is it?
In aggregate yes 1 edge is a very small thing. Because maybe I’ll have enough to do something special isn’t a yes you do it’s a maybe. And if it’s not used at all it does nothing to reflect that the shot is difficult on its own merits.
And yes if the rule is grab cover is an action and move is an action unless grab cover says you can move x meters as part of this action any movement past a trivial amount would most likely be seen as a a separate action by a wide range of non dick GMs. Because that’s how the rules were written. If you want to include non trivial movement up to x meters it should be in the text. Step into cover next to you sure. Run 3 meters across the room to grab cover behind the filing cabinet probably not. And that still seems like something a normal human could pull off in 3 seconds.
The entire point of free actions was to have a mechanic to cover the non stuff or roll it into other actions so it didn’t bog down your actual actions. Like unbuckle, open door, step out of car, draw gun, use door as cover. Sure I can ignore that and will, but that doesn’t make it how the rules are written and it doesn’t make a GM who takes rules a bit more seriously than me a dick. Maybe the people running the live play misstated and there are non actions or something, but removal of free actions or a similar mechanic bogs the action economy down with useless crap by the rules.
But yeah the rules are fine it’s just dick GMs playing it wrong.
But at the same time as an experienced GM, game developer, and writer you can not possibly write a rule book that covers every circumstance in such detail and you have to depend on GM's and players both to be capable of some level of independent thought. If you did attempt it you're guaranteed to miss at least one thing if not several hundred and still end up with a rule book that was several thousand pages long. So instead you write rules that are open ended and flexible so all of the minutiae is not needed or desired. The rules are abstract and vague in some places on purpose, so don't get bogged down in details that have zero effective impact. EDIT: this is not directed at you, just a general statement.
Overall my final piece of advice for anyone is the same thing I tell my GM's at cons while prepping ... just make sure you and the players have fun! As an example I just ran 5 days of events at Origins and not once over the course of all those missions was a rule book ever pulled out by myself or any of my players, but every table walked away with a smile on everyone's face.
-
One point of edge is a 33% chance to turn a fail into a hit, or an 84% chance to remove a single glitch, with a 33% chance of that non-glitch to be a success. +/- 5 points is 25% more chance to succeed or fail in D&D, and varies based at target number.
One edge to lessen/not glitch seems like a pretty good spend to me.
We can also call that a 67% percent chance you wasted an edge. As for glitching, if your pool is large enough the chance is low enough as to be irrelevant, and if your pool that high and someone does the 5 option turning one glitch isn't actually likely to save you. So that math all just says failure.
As to D&D it is of course totally different game with totally different math, but if you want to go there bounded accuracy in 5e means player character are intended to have chance well above 50%. Further D&D hit points are nothing like the Condition monitors. The only penalty for D&D hp is going to zero. That's not the case in SR. The Failure Spiral is much faster in SR. Players in SR are already going to have 2/3 of their pool fail. So giving the option just means letting your player waste resources 67% of the time.
Does sound like a good idea to anyone?
-
In aggregate yes 1 edge is a very small thing.
1 Edge can add 1 to any die, after you roll. So it'll turn a "4" into a hit. If you're steadily building Edge, one more hit for many of your rolls is fairly solid.
Quick start rules anyway.
Potentially 1 more hit. And though it may be getting lost in the message I’m not arguing that the edge mechanic is bad on its own. I actually like what I’ve heard. I just say it’s inadequate to represent penalties because 1 one edge on its own isn’t close to representing blind fire etc.
You have to maybe have enough edge already or just be 1 away from the big spender edge move to represent blind fire and if used that way great it felt like a tough shot now you are out of edge so if she used his 2nd major to shoot again there is no penalty apparently. And if it’s not used explicitly for defense it did literally nothing to represent that the shot was a impossible shot. And I think that is a crap narrative.
-
There no question in my mind, that 1 point for 1 die is bad. It's a trap, a waste of resources the majority of the time (67% to be exact). Does that mean the whole system is bad? Not necessarily, but if your house built on a bad foundation, don't be surprised when it comes tumbling down.
-
There no question in my mind, that 1 point for 1 die is bad. It's a trap, a waste of resources the majority of the time (67% to be exact). Does that mean the whole system is bad? Not necessarily, but if your house built on a bad foundation, don't be surprised when it comes tumbling down.
I was initially going to argue that it’s not bad. But yeah as a spendable resource even if I’m adept at working the system to earn more that’s a bad buy. The turn a 4 into a 5 one is decent though.
-
There no question in my mind, that 1 point for 1 die is bad. It's a trap, a waste of resources the majority of the time (67% to be exact). Does that mean the whole system is bad? Not necessarily, but if your house built on a bad foundation, don't be surprised when it comes tumbling down.
I was initially going to argue that it’s not bad. But yeah as a spendable resource even if I’m adept at working the system to earn more that’s a bad buy. The turn a 4 into a 5 one is decent though.
As long as your pool fairly large yeah probably so.
-
There no question in my mind, that 1 point for 1 die is bad. It's a trap, a waste of resources the majority of the time (67% to be exact).
There's at least one angle you're missing (and that I know I can discuss):
1 edge for 1 die roll isn't 67% chance of being wasted. If for example you exactly glitch, you can reroll one of your 1s and have a 84% chance of getting something other than another 1 and therefore avoiding the glitch. Sure for 2 edge you can guarantee the glitch goes away, but for 1 edge you get 5 in 6 odds which are still pretty good, but you ALSO get a 33% chance of that 1 turning into a 5 or 6 instead. That 1 edge option is not a bad alternative to 2 edge for a guarantee.
-
I´m on the fence about the Strength thing.
As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value. That does make some sense for many melee weapons, especially Blades and Knifes. The most important factor with bladed and pointed weapons is where you hit, not how much muscle you put behind it. That´s why I actually find SR5 more unrealistic in this regard: A swift surprise attacker with a knife is a deadly threat in reality, even if it´s just some lanky methhead. However, in SR5 that Methhead (or BTL-Junkie) would never be able to significantly hurt you, even with a lucky hit. Strength was everything. Now, Strength can only give you - well - a bit of an Edge. That somewhat fits, at least for these kind of weapons. And while it doesn´t fit as good with weapons like Clubs or Axes: Lifting an axe over your head and smash it straight down is something even a Strength 1 nerd should be able to pull off. It will be a shitty performance though, which will likely give the opposition Edge as well. And if that´s not enough punishment for the potential 1-Strength Axe murderer build, the GM could also argue with encumbrance: "Yeah, you can take your Axe, but not much stuff beyond that".
There are still two major problems here:
- The whole Attack Value/Armor/Edge-mechanic (as far as we know so far) is likely to be a total disaster. 1 Edge isn´t doing much of a difference, and with a maximum of 2 Edge per pass (or is it per round? Yeah, it´s probably per round, since that would be even worse ::)), Strength will often yield no benefit at all - Just like armor. If that whole mechanic wouldn´t be so stupid, there would be much less grief about Strengt only counting for the Attack value.
- With unarmed Attacks still using Strength for the purpose of Damage Calculation, Strength-maxed Characters would be more dangerous unarmed than with a melee weapon - and that just isn´t realistic, let alone balanced. The main advantage of unarmed combat is that it´s available everywhere. Using a weapon should always be more of threat than using your fists alone (apart from adepts, maybe).
There are easy fixes to these problems. One would be to tweak the Attack Value/Armor/Edge clusterfuck interaction into something more reasonable and rewarding. Shouldn´t be too hard, and it´s also a good idea when looking at the other half of that problem (armor being almost useless for avoiding damage and giving you magic mojo points instead). The other would be an option to further buff the damage of Melee weapons for exceptionally stong characters. It´s just really telling that the writers weren´t able to see these pitfalls themselfes...
Do we have any concrete values of weapon damage vs. how easy it is to get a high STR value?
-
There no question in my mind, that 1 point for 1 die is bad. It's a trap, a waste of resources the majority of the time (67% to be exact).
There's at least one angle you're missing (and that I can discuss):
1 karma for 1 die roll isn't 67% chance of being wasted. If for example you exactly glitch, you can reroll one of your 1s and have a 84% chance of getting something other than another 1 and therefore avoiding the glitch. Sure for 2 karma you can guarantee the glitch goes away, but for 1 karma you get 5 in 6 odds which are still pretty good, but you ALSO get a 33% chance of that 1 turning into a 5 or 6 instead. That 1 edge option is not a bad alternative to 2 edge for a guarantee.
I did actually address that. Moonshine did raise that point as it's pretty obvious one. But just b/c I care, I'll go over again for you SSDR, first point if your pool is large enough glitch odds are basically negligible. Point 2 If however if someone uses the 5 points of edge thing, making glitch odds as likely as your success odds. Then the chances are very low you're glitch is going to by exactly one. Point three if such a extremely rare circumstance occurred then for one edge you would have a 84% chance of saving you from a glitch. Finally point four that circumstance however is laughably unlikely, and increasingly unlikely the larger your pool gets. So no the majority of player aren't likely to experience that, many, many more will try spending one to re-roll one die at which the fact below will be felt at the table
Spending 1 edge to re-roll 1 die does have exactly a 67% chance of failure, that's a mathematical fact.
Now what is this Karma thing your talking about are we playing 3rd here? Are we going back to being able to spend karma for more dice in 6e?
As to what you can't discuss it's irrelevant to the conversation until you can discuss it, so why do you bringing it up exactly?
-
Spending 1 edge to re-roll 1 die does have exactly a 67% chance of failure, that's a mathematical fact.
As to what you can't discuss it's irrelevant to the conversation until you can discuss it, so why do you bringing it up exactly?
I brought it up because your math is wrong. Or, least it's SOMETIMES wrong. Namely, when what you're trying to do is turn a 1 into a 2,3,4,5, or 6. You're not always trying to turn a 1, 2, 3, or 4 into a 5 or 6, you know.
Now what is this Karma thing your talking about are we playing 3rd here? Are we going back to being able to spend karma for more dice in 6e?
Mea culpa. I didn't edit out the incorrect language before you responded. I did mean edge, and that's what it says now.
-
One point of edge is a 33% chance to turn a fail into a hit, or an 84% chance to remove a single glitch, with a 33% chance of that non-glitch to be a success. +/- 5 points is 25% more chance to succeed or fail in D&D, and varies based at target number.
One edge to lessen/not glitch seems like a pretty good spend to me.
Spending 1 edge to re-roll 1 die does have exactly a 67% chance of failure, that's a mathematical fact.
It's also a 33% chance of success as well, in addition to an 84% chance to avoid a glitch. Also mathematical facts.
We can also call that a 67% percent chance you wasted an edge. As for glitching, if your pool is large enough the chance is low enough as to be irrelevant, and if your pool that high and someone does the 5 option turning one glitch isn't actually likely to save you. So that math all just says failure.
And if you're pool is low that could save you from problems. You know if someone has turned your glitch rate to 33% before you choose to reroll (or even roll) a die, so you probably shouldn't do so unless you need to. Situations ya' know, that's what a lot of rules are there for.
Wasting Edge doesn't seem nearly as bad in this coming edition as it does in the current or previous editions, seeing as how you can get them back pretty quickly and can only have a max of 7 at a time. Besides, the QSR seems to say that you can only spend Edge on one effect per action, but doesn't say you can't spend it multiple times for a single larger Edge effect (ie: spending 4 Edge to reroll 4 dice).
We've also been focused on just rerolling a single die on our characters rolls, and the boost simply says Reroll one die post roll. What if we can force that security guard that just got a lucky roll to reroll one (or more) dice. You're listed 67% failure rate works in our favor!
-
I´m on the fence about the Strength thing.
As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value. That does make some sense for many melee weapons, especially Blades and Knifes. The most important factor with bladed and pointed weapons is where you hit, not how much muscle you put behind it. That´s why I actually find SR5 more unrealistic in this regard: A swift surprise attacker with a knife is a deadly threat in reality, even if it´s just some lanky methhead. However, in SR5 that Methhead (or BTL-Junkie) would never be able to significantly hurt you, even with a lucky hit. Strength was everything. Now, Strength can only give you - well - a bit of an Edge. That somewhat fits, at least for these kind of weapons. And while it doesn´t fit as good with weapons like Clubs or Axes: Lifting an axe over your head and smash it straight down is something even a Strength 1 nerd should be able to pull off. It will be a shitty performance though, which will likely give the opposition Edge as well. And if that´s not enough punishment for the potential 1-Strength Axe murderer build, the GM could also argue with encumbrance: "Yeah, you can take your Axe, but not much stuff beyond that".
There are still two major problems here:
- The whole Attack Value/Armor/Edge-mechanic (as far as we know so far) is likely to be a total disaster. 1 Edge isn´t doing much of a difference, and with a maximum of 2 Edge per pass (or is it per round? Yeah, it´s probably per round, since that would be even worse ::)), Strength will often yield no benefit at all - Just like armor. If that whole mechanic wouldn´t be so stupid, there would be much less grief about Strengt only counting for the Attack value.
- With unarmed Attacks still using Strength for the purpose of Damage Calculation, Strength-maxed Characters would be more dangerous unarmed than with a melee weapon - and that just isn´t realistic, let alone balanced. The main advantage of unarmed combat is that it´s available everywhere. Using a weapon should always be more of threat than using your fists alone (apart from adepts, maybe).
There are easy fixes to these problems. One would be to tweak the Attack Value/Armor/Edge clusterfuck interaction into something more reasonable and rewarding. Shouldn´t be too hard, and it´s also a good idea when looking at the other half of that problem (armor being almost useless for avoiding damage and giving you magic mojo points instead). The other would be an option to further buff the damage of Melee weapons for exceptionally stong characters. It´s just really telling that the writers weren´t able to see these pitfalls themselfes...
Do we have any concrete values of weapon damage vs. how easy it is to get a high STR value?
High str seems to be as easy/hard to get as before (don't have character creation rules, so lick a salt block with that), though cyber-augmentation is still unknown. We've got a few weapon damage values from the Quick Start Rules. They are less then older editions, but soak pools are also smaller so it balances out fairly well, like using the old soak dice from armor as auto-successes. That my change once the full rules come out so don't take that as gospel yet.
-
On a first glance, the edge effects don´t look really convincing, especially the 1 Edge - 1 Dice - reroll.
However, I wouldn´t underestimate the fact that you can choose when and for what particular effect you want to spend Edge. 1 Edge != 1 Dice.
Can anyone tell how this 2 Edge-Limit works? Is that really part of the rules? Is it just for one Action or one Pass? Or is it really for the whole combat turn? Because holy shit would that be stupid ::)
-
On a first glance, the edge effects don´t look really convincing, especially the 1 Edge - 1 Dice - reroll.
However, I wouldn´t underestimate the fact that you can choose when and for what particular effect you want to spend Edge. 1 Edge != 1 Dice.
Can anyone tell how this 2 Edge-Limit works? Is that really part of the rules? Is it just for one Action or one Pass? Or is it really for the whole combat turn? Because holy shit would that be stupid ::)
first there are no passes anymore, everyone just gets the one turn per round
as for the other .. wording is confusing and it is on our errata list to get clarification (they way it reads could be per action or per round) .. we are pushing for it to be per action since that is how we play tested it
-
On a first glance, the edge effects don´t look really convincing, especially the 1 Edge - 1 Dice - reroll.
However, I wouldn´t underestimate the fact that you can choose when and for what particular effect you want to spend Edge. 1 Edge != 1 Dice.
Can anyone tell how this 2 Edge-Limit works? Is that really part of the rules? Is it just for one Action or one Pass? Or is it really for the whole combat turn? Because holy shit would that be stupid ::)
first there are no passes anymore, everyone just gets the one turn per round
as for the other .. wording is confusing and it is on our errata list to get clarification (they way it reads could be per action or per round) .. we are pushing for it to be per action since that is how we play tested it
So like, you take your two minor actions which end up giving you +2 edge, but then when you take your major action you can get another point of edge from it? Or more all your actions can only give you a +2, but someone else’s actions that same round can give you another 1 or 2?
-
Just to throw this into the mix, the new Edge mechanic seems strikingly familiar to the "blue wave" of boost dice from FFG's Genesys system.
-
Just to throw this into the mix, the new Edge mechanic seems strikingly familiar to the "blue wave" of boost dice from FFG's Genesys system.
if you had seen the first version that went to play testing you would have saw a LOT of familiarity there :)
-
Just to throw this into the mix, the new Edge mechanic seems strikingly familiar to the "blue wave" of boost dice from FFG's Genesys system.
if you had seen the first version that went to play testing you would have saw a LOT of familiarity there :)
That statement puts way too much credence to the belief that CGL is more interested in following some trend then making a game that their player base would like.
And before it comes up, I know that CGL is a business and needs to make money, but there are to many companies these days following market trends which change with the wind.
IMHO, The gaming industry needs to remember that the old players where there before gaming became main stream, and have supported Shadowrun through all its owners and developers.
My point is, while I don't begrudge any company for trying to make money, I don't care for the only getting new players and old players be damned attitudes that most companies have these days now I'm not automatically accusing CGL of this, but most of what has been seen is leaning that way.
-
it's particularly galling considering the simpler shadowrun already exists and will continue to be sold; Shadowrun Anarchy.
6e is what Anarchy should have been.
That would have worked well for the more casual player who doesn't like crunch and could care less about realism / sensible outcomes and just want to throw fireballs and shoot shit up.
That would have then left the opening for 5e to be simplified and the borked subsystems fixed.
Instead we have two systems that serve the same player / market.
I have a really hard time understanding how THAT decision was made.
"We already have a rules light system, so let's build ANOTHER rules light system, but different".
That's entirely befuddling to me.
-
Has any of the live play things shown how enemy edge works. I’m usually the GM and the idea of tracking 6 dudes edge and individually determining each action how to use edge sounds like a nightmare. Do they have group edge at least.
-
Just to throw this into the mix, the new Edge mechanic seems strikingly familiar to the "blue wave" of boost dice from FFG's Genesys system.
if you had seen the first version that went to play testing you would have saw a LOT of familiarity there :)
That statement puts way too much credence to the belief that CGL is more interested in following some trend then making a game that their player base would like.
And before it comes up, I know that CGL is a business and needs to make money, but there are to many companies these days following market trends which change with the wind.
IMHO, The gaming industry needs to remember that the old players where there before gaming became main stream, and have supported Shadowrun through all its owners and developers.
My point is, while I don't begrudge any company for trying to make money, I don't care for the only getting new players and old players be damned attitudes that most companies have these days now I'm not automatically accusing CGL of this, but most of what has been seen is leaning that way.
Yeah, but game companies have been ripping off each others ideas for a very long time now. Most of the major games out there now you can find echos of other systems in them, and that's not inherently a bad thing. Why re-invent the wheel after all. At least they didn't just copy it whole-sale with no changes like some other games have done.
-
Why re-invent the wheel after all.
Copying the wheel doesn't work too well when what you need is an inclined plane.
-
Just to throw this into the mix, the new Edge mechanic seems strikingly familiar to the "blue wave" of boost dice from FFG's Genesys system.
if you had seen the first version that went to play testing you would have saw a LOT of familiarity there :)
That statement puts way too much credence to the belief that CGL is more interested in following some trend then making a game that their player base would like.
And before it comes up, I know that CGL is a business and needs to make money, but there are to many companies these days following market trends which change with the wind.
IMHO, The gaming industry needs to remember that the old players where there before gaming became main stream, and have supported Shadowrun through all its owners and developers.
My point is, while I don't begrudge any company for trying to make money, I don't care for the only getting new players and old players be damned attitudes that most companies have these days now I'm not automatically accusing CGL of this, but most of what has been seen is leaning that way.
Yeah, but game companies have been ripping off each others ideas for a very long time now. Most of the major games out there now you can find echos of other systems in them, and that's not inherently a bad thing. Why re-invent the wheel after all. At least they didn't just copy it whole-sale with no changes like some other games have done.
The real question is what was so game destroying about the current wheel that a new tire would not fix it.
IMHO between 4th and 5th you have a good game, the issues was that the developers went overboard trying to fix 4th in the wrong direction.
Now they are jumping off the cliff in that direction. I will be the first to say that 4th and 5th needed work, but 6th has taken everything that was bad and "good" about them and throw it out to settle on one god mechanic to rule them all and a smaller corebook.
I'm sorry but reduced page count is not a key buying factor for me when getting into a RPG, in fact I tend to see it as a turnoff since things have to be cut just to hit an arbitrary number. And they act like this is a must buy key feature(It's one the sale sheet as such).
-
I guess they are seeing how well the extremely simplyfied D&D 5E performs and want in on the action of getting a new generation of players who seem to have even less patience for reading and remembering rules or basic math.
-
Is 5e d&d still going strong. My group played it initially but as it went on the simplified system wore on people. From some players in my group lack of build options. Others the illogic of advantage/disadvantage. The small proficiency bonus ruled by a d20. We haven’t played it in a while.
-
Is 5e d&d still going strong. My group played it initially but as it went on the simplified system wore on people. From some players in my group lack of build options. Others the illogic of advantage/disadvantage. The small proficiency bonus ruled by a d20. We haven’t played it in a while.
Sadly, 5E is the best selling edition of D&D so far.
-
Is 5e d&d still going strong. My group played it initially but as it went on the simplified system wore on people. From some players in my group lack of build options. Others the illogic of advantage/disadvantage. The small proficiency bonus ruled by a d20. We haven’t played it in a while.
Sadly, 5E is the best selling edition of D&D so far.
I wonder how much of that is tied to it getting a main stream popularity boost from TV etc.
-
Is 5e d&d still going strong. My group played it initially but as it went on the simplified system wore on people. From some players in my group lack of build options. Others the illogic of advantage/disadvantage. The small proficiency bonus ruled by a d20. We haven’t played it in a while.
Sadly, 5E is the best selling edition of D&D so far.
I wonder how much of that is tied to it getting a main stream popularity boost from TV etc.
Not much, it already performed very well before Stranger Things started. Sadly it really seems like the next generation of players is even more into simplification than the current one (or rather don't want to bother with "complex" rules). And with SR, together with Rolemaster, being considered the epitome of complexity it looked rather bleak for those systems when they try to acquire new players.
So from a business point of view simplification makes sense. Still doesn't mean I have to like it.
-
Is 5e d&d still going strong. My group played it initially but as it went on the simplified system wore on people. From some players in my group lack of build options. Others the illogic of advantage/disadvantage. The small proficiency bonus ruled by a d20. We haven’t played it in a while.
Sadly, 5E is the best selling edition of D&D so far.
I wonder how much of that is tied to it getting a main stream popularity boost from TV etc.
Not much, it already performed very well before Stranger Things started. Sadly it really seems like the next generation of players is even more into simplification than the current one (or rather don't want to bother with "complex" rules).
I meant more ongoing support for it. It’s initial launch was big because it’s D&D and they were rebounding from 4e which was a disaster and by basically making 5e d&d again.
Might just be all the groups I play with but simple systems have a initial appeal but their lack of depth has our interest wane over time. D&d is not that lite of a system though. They streamlined some core mechanics but it’s still meaty in other areas. It’s not like it’s savage worlds or something. Maybe it has the right middle point for generic fantasy rpg for most people.
-
As a guy who occasionally does calculus for fun, I feel obligated to remind everyone that you don't have to be bad at math to find basic addition and subtraction to be a bothersome chore.
-
I meant more ongoing support for it. It’s initial launch was big because it’s D&D and they were rebounding from 4e which was a disaster and by basically making 5e d&d again.
Might just be all the groups I play with but simple systems have a initial appeal but their lack of depth has our interest wane over time. D&d is not that lite of a system though. They streamlined some core mechanics but it’s still meaty in other areas. It’s not like it’s savage worlds or something. Maybe it has the right middle point for generic fantasy rpg for most people.
I don't think it is.
Yes, it is a cliché that the "youth" has very short attention spans thanks to smartphones and social media, etc. but I think it contains some grains of truth. In the entire RPG industry the simple games seem to do very well proportionally. Same goes for other entertainment like video games. The guys doing Baldurs Gate 3 are even calling 5E too complex and I have seen many people asking for more simple systems as 5E was too complicated for them (or had too many rules to remember).
Sadly Catalyst has apparently forgotten that when WotC did "a whole new edition, with new concepts and a different feel" (Jason Hardy interview) it resulted in 4E which was a huge flop and nearly tanked the brand.
-
As a guy who occasionally does calculus for fun, I feel obligated to remind everyone that you don't have to be bad at math to find basic addition and subtraction to be a bothersome chore.
Why I was happy thaco0 went away. I can add any time no problem but If I’m tired subtracting into the negatives is a chore for me.
-
Is 5e d&d still going strong. My group played it initially but as it went on the simplified system wore on people. From some players in my group lack of build options. Others the illogic of advantage/disadvantage. The small proficiency bonus ruled by a d20. We haven’t played it in a while.
5e is doing very well in fact. In it's genre the only thing that might challenge it is PF2, and I'd call it very big might at the moment. The homebrew on 5e is big now, and only looks like it's gonna get bigger. Which WotC seems to happy with. Keeping 5e to a relatively "small" number of books seems to be working fairly well for them.
-
it's particularly galling considering the simpler shadowrun already exists and will continue to be sold; Shadowrun Anarchy.
6e is what Anarchy should have been.
That would have worked well for the more casual player who doesn't like crunch and could care less about realism / sensible outcomes and just want to throw fireballs and shoot shit up.
That would have then left the opening for 5e to be simplified and the borked subsystems fixed.
Instead we have two systems that serve the same player / market.
I have a really hard time understanding how THAT decision was made.
"We already have a rules light system, so let's build ANOTHER rules light system, but different".
That's entirely befuddling to me.
Wow you are insulting. Could you try any harder? Good bye.
-
it's particularly galling considering the simpler shadowrun already exists and will continue to be sold; Shadowrun Anarchy.
6e is what Anarchy should have been.
That would have worked well for the more casual player who doesn't like crunch and could care less about realism / sensible outcomes and just want to throw fireballs and shoot shit up.
That would have then left the opening for 5e to be simplified and the borked subsystems fixed.
Instead we have two systems that serve the same player / market.
I have a really hard time understanding how THAT decision was made.
"We already have a rules light system, so let's build ANOTHER rules light system, but different".
That's entirely befuddling to me.
...👍
-
it's particularly galling considering the simpler shadowrun already exists and will continue to be sold; Shadowrun Anarchy.
6e is what Anarchy should have been.
That would have worked well for the more casual player who doesn't like crunch and could care less about realism / sensible outcomes and just want to throw fireballs and shoot shit up.
That would have then left the opening for 5e to be simplified and the borked subsystems fixed.
Instead we have two systems that serve the same player / market.
I have a really hard time understanding how THAT decision was made.
"We already have a rules light system, so let's build ANOTHER rules light system, but different".
That's entirely befuddling to me.
As a fan of Anarchy (that's how I play Shadowrun now) and having access to the SR6 CRB (french traductor and member of hotfix errata team), let me disagree here.
SR6 is closer to SR5 than to Anarchy with respect to simplification.
-
..OK caught about half of tonight's live play session (was busy in the kitchen).
When the sidebar chat moved to purchasing/upgrading skills I found another major downside. Instead of it taking 2 Karma x skill rating to learn/improve a skill, it now takes 5 Karma. Furthermore the time span is increased from days x rating (1 - 4) and weeks x rating (5+) to one full month x skill rating. This will really stifle character advancement particularly in a homebrew to the point your character will be relatively "static" for a long time. It will also likely mean few characters will take anything above a Low lifestyle as it could get costly (increasing your firearms skill to say, 6 suddenly costs you 12,000¥ at a low lifestyle plus the training cost). So much for what you made on that last run that you wanted to put away for that new piece of chrome or wetware.
The time factor will not have as much an impact in missions play as you can take as much downtime as needed between sessions however the resources impact will still be there. For example my character Leela who has a middle lifestyle, getting that rating 6 in a single skill would cost 30 Karma and 30,000¥ (about the price for a degree at a state college!).
The way it was explained is that all skills are now skill groups and sub-classes (like say Pistols) are now specialisations that still require you to have the base group skill. It wasn't explained how much it cost on time and Karma for specialisations and how far one could increase them (I came away with the impression that you need to raise the core skill first to improve the specialisation further). If Karma awards are about the same as they currently are in 5E, it would mean very, very slow character advancement overall. I don't know how others feel, but if I devote weeks if not months to playing and really don't see my character improving very much, I'll bag it and go find some other way to spend my time that is more rewarding (or just stay with 5E).
-
It will also likely mean few characters will take anything above a Low lifestyle as it could get costly (increasing your firearms skill to say, 6 suddenly costs you 12,000¥ at a low lifestyle plus the training cost). So much for what you made on that last run that you wanted to put away for that new piece of chrome or wetware.
I don't know if I am inserting meaning you didn't intend, or not. It reads as if you think that training time must be done consecutively without break.
I can not comment on Missions play, but in the 5e Core book you are allowed to do other things during training time - including doing runs and such to earn some dough.
If I get what your comments are about, then it shouldn't be an issue if 6e uses the same rules as 5e for training times.
Now, the real questions is what can you train simultaneously?
In 5e, someone training a Skill Group could not train anything else during that time (except Edge, as that was unique in that it required no time to train).
In that regard, once you start training Skill X from 5 to 6, you may have six months where you are incapable of training anything else....
-
I mean the timeframes for training can be easily fixed by talking to the GM. Find a homebrew rule everybody is happy with, problem solved!
-
I mean the timeframes for training can be easily fixed by talking to the GM. Find a homebrew rule everybody is happy with, problem solved!
Imo its not a good sign when people start to write lists of things to houserule before the edition is out.
-
..OK caught about half of tonight's live play session (was busy in the kitchen).
When the sidebar chat moved to purchasing/upgrading skills I found another major downside. Instead of it taking 2 Karma x skill rating to learn/improve a skill, it now takes 5 Karma. Furthermore the time span is increased from days x rating (1 - 4) and weeks x rating (5+) to one full month x skill rating. This will really stifle character advancement particularly in a homebrew to the point your character will be relatively "static" for a long time. It will also likely mean few characters will take anything above a Low lifestyle as it could get costly (increasing your firearms skill to say, 6 suddenly costs you 12,000¥ at a low lifestyle plus the training cost). So much for what you made on that last run that you wanted to put away for that new piece of chrome or wetware.
The time factor will not have as much an impact in missions play as you can take as much downtime as needed between sessions however the resources impact will still be there. For example my character Leela who has a middle lifestyle, getting that rating 6 in a single skill would cost 30 Karma and 30,000¥ (about the price for a degree at a state college!).
The way it was explained is that all skills are now skill groups and sub-classes (like say Pistols) are now specialisations that still require you to have the base group skill. It wasn't explained how much it cost on time and Karma for specialisations and how far one could increase them (I came away with the impression that you need to raise the core skill first to improve the specialisation further). If Karma awards are about the same as they currently are in 5E, it would mean very, very slow character advancement overall. I don't know how others feel, but if I devote weeks if not months to playing and really don't see my character improving very much, I'll bag it and go find some other way to spend my time that is more rewarding (or just stay with 5E).
Just Wow. Why put in a rule that's going to have to be completely ignored? That's just doesn't make any sense. How did that get through play test?
As to the raising cost did they increase karma awards to go with it?
-
Basically it will be like Traveller where you create complete characters at the start and any future advancement is through gear and maybe the occasional extra point.
So guess everyone will put Ressources to E (or maybe C or D for street sams) because you can upgrade your gear much more easily than your skills.
On the other hand, didn't they also say that they removed gear restrictions at chargen? Basically they seem to have removed advancement completely. Not really a fan of that.
I wonder how that will affect the balance between Nuyen and karma archetypes.
-
Why would training put your character into inoperative status? One doesn't train 18 hours a day every day, you can do other things around your training with little disruption to it. Also, did they mention if you were required to go into a training school no mater what? The sammy blazing away with his Ingram on every run under the sun is engaging in live fire practice rather then simply going to the range. Arguably a better teacher!
As for the skills as groups, feels like a bit of the older editions creeping back in. Not sure of other tables, but I personally saw people either raise a single skill by itself, or the full group as that was more cost efficient then raising just two skills in a group. Maybe this was something that was seen a lot more overall so they decided to go with that while cutting down on skills people just didn't use much.
-
Just to throw this into the mix, the new Edge mechanic seems strikingly familiar to the "blue wave" of boost dice from FFG's Genesys system.
if you had seen the first version that went to play testing you would have saw a LOT of familiarity there :)
That statement puts way too much credence to the belief that CGL is more interested in following some trend then making a game that their player base would like.
And before it comes up, I know that CGL is a business and needs to make money, but there are to many companies these days following market trends which change with the wind.
IMHO, The gaming industry needs to remember that the old players where there before gaming became main stream, and have supported Shadowrun through all its owners and developers.
My point is, while I don't begrudge any company for trying to make money, I don't care for the only getting new players and old players be damned attitudes that most companies have these days now I'm not automatically accusing CGL of this, but most of what has been seen is leaning that way.
Yeah, but game companies have been ripping off each others ideas for a very long time now. Most of the major games out there now you can find echos of other systems in them, and that's not inherently a bad thing. Why re-invent the wheel after all. At least they didn't just copy it whole-sale with no changes like some other games have done.
The real question is what was so game destroying about the current wheel that a new tire would not fix it.
IMHO between 4th and 5th you have a good game, the issues was that the developers went overboard trying to fix 4th in the wrong direction.
Now they are jumping off the cliff in that direction. I will be the first to say that 4th and 5th needed work, but 6th has taken everything that was bad and "good" about them and throw it out to settle on one god mechanic to rule them all and a smaller corebook.
I'm sorry but reduced page count is not a key buying factor for me when getting into a RPG, in fact I tend to see it as a turnoff since things have to be cut just to hit an arbitrary number. And they act like this is a must buy key feature(It's one the sale sheet as such).
Considering page count is a major component of the cost to print, yeah it's a key feature from a business perspective. Even trade paperbacks run into this. Not to mention that a bigger book is more likely to have binding issues, something we can all agree sucks ;D
I played a lot more 3rd edition then anything else with Shadowrun, and to be honest what I've been able to find out about the rules beyond the rumors, it feels like they've taken and melded the best parts of 5th into an updated version of 3rd. Keeping the base simple but leaving it open for a lot of flexibility and expanding complexity as the company and players need.
-
..OK caught about half of tonight's live play session (was busy in the kitchen).
When the sidebar chat moved to purchasing/upgrading skills I found another major downside. Instead of it taking 2 Karma x skill rating to learn/improve a skill, it now takes 5 Karma. Furthermore the time span is increased from days x rating (1 - 4) and weeks x rating (5+) to one full month x skill rating. This will really stifle character advancement particularly in a homebrew to the point your character will be relatively "static" for a long time. It will also likely mean few characters will take anything above a Low lifestyle as it could get costly (increasing your firearms skill to say, 6 suddenly costs you 12,000¥ at a low lifestyle plus the training cost). So much for what you made on that last run that you wanted to put away for that new piece of chrome or wetware.
The time factor will not have as much an impact in missions play as you can take as much downtime as needed between sessions however the resources impact will still be there. For example my character Leela who has a middle lifestyle, getting that rating 6 in a single skill would cost 30 Karma and 30,000¥ (about the price for a degree at a state college!).
The way it was explained is that all skills are now skill groups and sub-classes (like say Pistols) are now specialisations that still require you to have the base group skill. It wasn't explained how much it cost on time and Karma for specialisations and how far one could increase them (I came away with the impression that you need to raise the core skill first to improve the specialisation further). If Karma awards are about the same as they currently are in 5E, it would mean very, very slow character advancement overall. I don't know how others feel, but if I devote weeks if not months to playing and really don't see my character improving very much, I'll bag it and go find some other way to spend my time that is more rewarding (or just stay with 5E).
Just Wow. Why put in a rule that's going to have to be completely ignored? That's just doesn't make any sense. How did that get through play test?
As to the raising cost did they increase karma awards to go with it?
Skills in 6E are more broader and thus more valuable than the more specialized skills in previous Editions. The increased price tag is justified with or without an increase in Karma awards.
That being said, the suggested Karma (and Nuyen!) awards in previous Editions have always been to low. You often started with a pretty optimized and powerfull character right from the get go, but it takes a lot of gaming sessions to noticable advance your char. And a rating*months training time surely isn´t very helpfull regarding this problem. However, we don´t know yet if these training intervalls have to untinterrupted downtime sessions (that would be terrible!) and how they intervalls can be modified by stuff like lifestyle choices, professional trainers etc. Maybe in 6E, contacts that can teach you new stuff or paid courses will finally be worthwhile?
But I agree, that long training intervall is a kind of sour first impression for the direction of character advancements in 6E. And there would actually be a lot to improve, because character advancements (in contrast to character building) wasn´t a strong suit of the last 2 Editions of Shadowrun either. Progressive pricing for Attribute and Skill enhancements, in combination with a character creations system with liniar advancement cost, is a big incentive for players to min-max at character creation and buy mostly cheap side skills and perks later in the game. Monetary Advancements (Gear, Augmentations...) were even more problematic than Karma Advancement. Stuff like Augmentations and Decking equipment was raised in cost in 5E, so if you played one of these Archetypes, you usually took the best you could afford at chargen and never upgraded it. And if you actually did save up your Money to buy a Rating 3 Synaptic Booster or a High-Level Deck, it really stretched the plausibility of the character´s motiviation: "Wow, I´ve saved up more money than a wageslave will earn in their entire live. I could buy a house. I could get out of this dangerous life in the shadows. But I´d rather spend that small fortune to put more chrome inside me so I´m a little bit better suited when I continue my dangerous life in the shadows" Hard to justify without qualities like Augmentation Addiction, Thrillseeker etc. Meanwhile, "Paranormals" like Mages, Adepts and, to a degree, Technomancers, often had troubles to find meaningfull ways to spend their money. The price for most other types of equipment, and especially magical equipment, was way too low and there was rarely a (financial) reason to not take the best you can get.
Because of this, I also really hope that top-tier weapons of a certain category will have a more punishing price tag than in the previous Editions. Taking the Ares Alpha was a no-brainer in 5E: Yes , it´s sooooo more expensive than a low-tier Assualt rifle - but compared to a new Augmentation, it´s still dirt cheap and gives you a lot more noticable advantages.
-
I never understood the value of any training time. Presumedly you are using the skill as you go on runs I think that is enough justification to raise it narratively. And mechanics who the hell wants a system where you spend or out aside karma but don’t get to see using it for 6 months whether that is with ongoing runs or not.
The costs I always felt compared to attributes group skill costs were too high. So if they are the same is still it’s still too high comparatively. Without knowing rewards hard to say if it’s too high vs the game.
-
I never understood the value of any training time. Presumedly you are using the skill as you go on runs I think that is enough justification to raise it narratively. And mechanics who the hell wants a system where you spend or out aside karma but don’t get to see using it for 6 months whether that is with ongoing runs or not.
The costs I always felt compared to attributes group skill costs were too high. So if they are the same is still it’s still too high comparatively. Without knowing rewards hard to say if it’s too high vs the game.
Even cops and soldiers have to spend X hours a month at the firing range, even if they pull their gun everyday. If you want to go realistic, every month you don't use a skill should decrease it's rank by 1.
-
I never understood the value of any training time. Presumedly you are using the skill as you go on runs I think that is enough justification to raise it narratively. And mechanics who the hell wants a system where you spend or out aside karma but don’t get to see using it for 6 months whether that is with ongoing runs or not.
The costs I always felt compared to attributes group skill costs were too high. So if they are the same is still it’s still too high comparatively. Without knowing rewards hard to say if it’s too high vs the game.
Even cops and soldiers have to spend X hours a month at the firing range, even if they pull their gun everyday. If you want to go realistic, every month you don't use a skill should decrease it's rank by 1.
So a game that uses edge to replace shooting modifiers is going to go full simulationist in advancement the one place im guessing pretty much no one wants It. The one thing I never heard was hey you know waiting 3 runs to see the fruits of my labor is too fast. Instead I want to wait like 12 maybe 24 runs before I see an improvement.
-
I never understood the value of any training time. Presumedly you are using the skill as you go on runs I think that is enough justification to raise it narratively. And mechanics who the hell wants a system where you spend or out aside karma but don’t get to see using it for 6 months whether that is with ongoing runs or not.
The costs I always felt compared to attributes group skill costs were too high. So if they are the same is still it’s still too high comparatively. Without knowing rewards hard to say if it’s too high vs the game.
Even cops and soldiers have to spend X hours a month at the firing range, even if they pull their gun everyday. If you want to go realistic, every month you don't use a skill should decrease it's rank by 1.
So a game that uses edge to replace shooting modifiers is going to go full simulationist in advancement the one place im guessing pretty much no one wants It. The one thing I never heard was hey you know waiting 3 runs to see the fruits of my labor is too fast. Instead I want to wait like 12 maybe 24 runs before I see an improvement.
I don't know, I haven't seen all the details in the rules for the advancement. But I also know a lot of people play that the break between runs is downtime of months as well, so it still works in that situation. I guess YMMV, since I never played a version that the next run was coming over your commlink when the last one just wrapped up.
-
notes on advancement (specifically skills)
Yes karma cost are higher, basically on par with skills groups ... because well they are basically skill groups now .. also the same cost as attributes
Specializations and expertise cost are pretty cheap ... same cost as a spell
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
-
When the sidebar chat moved to purchasing/upgrading skills I found another major downside. Instead of it taking 2 Karma x skill rating to learn/improve a skill, it now takes 5 Karma. Furthermore the time span is increased from days x rating (1 - 4) and weeks x rating (5+) to one full month x skill rating.
It'll just push char-gen in a familiar "Build Tall, Not Wide" direction. From the assorted posts char-gen is still skill or stat points that increase 1 for 1, and then Karma increase post-gen is an exponential increasing cost. I presume it'll be the same go big or go home for skill and stat allocation at chargen then slow incremental growth for mundanes.
I didn't expect that to change, I just hoped they'd dial it back. 5th Edition Shadowrun character advancement math is one of the worst parts of the game.
Hopefully they removed the 1/2 Logic limitation on skill training. Training one skill a month would be painful. Mundanes would just wind up with a huge backlog of training time if they did more than one run a month.
-
I never understood the value of any training time. Presumedly you are using the skill as you go on runs I think that is enough justification to raise it narratively. And mechanics who the hell wants a system where you spend or out aside karma but don’t get to see using it for 6 months whether that is with ongoing runs or not.
The costs I always felt compared to attributes group skill costs were too high. So if they are the same is still it’s still too high comparatively. Without knowing rewards hard to say if it’s too high vs the game.
Even cops and soldiers have to spend X hours a month at the firing range, even if they pull their gun everyday. If you want to go realistic, every month you don't use a skill should decrease it's rank by 1.
So a game that uses edge to replace shooting modifiers is going to go full simulationist in advancement the one place im guessing pretty much no one wants It. The one thing I never heard was hey you know waiting 3 runs to see the fruits of my labor is too fast. Instead I want to wait like 12 maybe 24 runs before I see an improvement.
I don't know, I haven't seen all the details in the rules for the advancement. But I also know a lot of people play that the break between runs is downtime of months as well, so it still works in that situation. I guess YMMV, since I never played a version that the next run was coming over your commlink when the last one just wrapped up.
I don’t see 2+ a month as right after the last one wrapped up. Most runs are 2-3 days and since the pay is not that much above lifestyle costs people who want to upgrade gear want more than 1 a month so they can actually save. But it sounds like it’s a optional rule, not sure why they would set the standard option out such an absurd length but oh well.
-
notes on advancement (specifically skills)
Yes karma cost are higher, basically on par with skills groups ... because well they are basically skill groups now .. also the same cost as attributes
Specializations and expertise cost are pretty cheap ... same cost as a spell
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
never understood that logic. Skill groups cost x. Attributes that are multiple skill groups rolled into 1 and have functions beyond the skills cost x as well.
-
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
Missions characters / GMs are stuck with RAW unless the Missions team makes a change.
And "Just Houserule it" isn't really a good answer for a lot of reasons.
And tracking training time on a spreadsheet isn't fun for 95% or so of the playerbase I'm guessing.
-
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
Missions characters / GMs are stuck with RAW unless the Missions team makes a change.
And "Just Houserule it" isn't really a good answer for a lot of reasons.
And tracking training time on a spreadsheet isn't fun for 95% or so of the playerbase I'm guessing.
exactly ... and since it is not a rule and just a suggestion then we as the Missions team will set those times so they are uniform
but house rules are the ultimate best answer because it should be about tailoring the experience to your group so everyone has fun not a debate session with a bunch of rules lawyers ... really that's all the Missions FAQ (bad name by the way so maybe I will get my way when we convert and get that changed) is just a collection of house rules specifically tailored to convention play
-
...Want to do some basic cinematic run to cover, while drawing a gun and firing off a shot. Nope can’t do it unless you are cybered or something...
I'm curious what makes you think this.
Major action to draw a weapon reduced to minor with the right gear. Move minor action. Take cover minor action. Shoot major action. That is 3 minors+1major. Normals get 2+1. Im sure if we go through the list of free actions and how they are now minors we can come up with more examples of this. Every previous edition free actions let you move and with a quick draw being out your pistol. 2 simples got you a shot and cover or if taking cover wasn’t an action 2 shots and you just moved into cover. If I wasn’t clear I’m not talking about your move taking you past a corner where you inherently have cover but moving into cover so you can see the enemies be in position to do things next round etc.
Will yelling things to teammates be a minor action now or is speaking some unknown non action thing.
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
From what I´ve seen about the new Action Economy so far: Honestely, not too terrible. F.i., an unaugmented normie can do Move, Shoot, Cover OR Quickdraw, Shoot, Cover OR Move, Cover, Ready a big Gun OR ...
Yes, in all of these scenarios, you are one or two minors or even a major Action short for doing something really "cinematic". But guess what? Normal people don´t do cinematic stuff in firefight. But that´s something Streetsams and Adepts can still do.
And boi, they are not the big losers of the new action economy as many like to claim here. In 5E, un- (or lightly) augmented fighters often had a very good chance for a second IP: 5+ Reaction, 5+ Intuition, there you go: Unless your get injured, your second Pass is safe. The wired-up chars could get 3 or 4 IP for their Karma/Gear/Essence Investment, and if they flunked the Initiative roll, they even might have just 2 IP like most serious combatants. Yes, there´s much to do in one Initative Pass, but the most important thing is attacking, which you could do only once per IP. Spare simple/free Actions were usually used for stuff like aiming (which is basically just a part of the attack) or running.
So assuming a 5E wired Streetsam rolled a good Initiative Score and got himself 4 IP: That´s 4 Attacks for that combat round, provided that he doesn´t get tasered, injured etc. Meanwhile, an unaugmented ganger with a good base Initative could have an (almost) safe second IP, which equals 2 Attacks. That´s the same ratio as Streetsam with 2 additonal minors can get (as long as he has it´s weapons readied etc.). But wait, there´s more: In 5E, the streetsam couldn´t do 2 Attacks after another straight at the start of the Combat. After each of the first 2 Attacks, the ganger(s) have an oppoturnity to shoot back. The "rhythm" of the combat would be: Sam, Ganger, Sam, Ganger, Sam, Sam (end of Turn), while In 6E, it would be: Sam, Sam, Ganger (end of Turn), Sam, Sam, Ganger (end of Turn).
If the Sam already has his Assault rifle out and ready, he has two Attacks to do some serious damage right at the start of Combat. That´s a bigger difference than many of you might think.
And if you still think that wired characters get the short end of the stick in 6E, just one word: Blitz . With one point of Edge, every little goon could roll 5 ID and go all cinematic on your ass. That´s gone as well, an rightfully so. (Though I do think that another Edge option to buy 1 or max. 2 additional Minor Actions would be a good idea to give both wired and unwired chars more flexibility for one combat turn. Maybe that´s something for the Combat supplement?)
-
That doesn't sound so bad.
Hopefully this trend continues and 6E plays a lot better than it sounds now.
Has there been any word on the Matrix so far?
-
That doesn't sound so bad.
Hopefully this trend continues and 6E plays a lot better than it sounds now.
Has there been any word on the Matrix so far?
Not really. The Quickstart rules have a very simplified thing for the matrix, apparently not even delving in the VR. One of the biggest things though is that marks are gone, vastly improving the action economy and in combat viability of Deckers.
-
...Want to do some basic cinematic run to cover, while drawing a gun and firing off a shot. Nope can’t do it unless you are cybered or something...
I'm curious what makes you think this.
Major action to draw a weapon reduced to minor with the right gear. Move minor action. Take cover minor action. Shoot major action. That is 3 minors+1major. Normals get 2+1. Im sure if we go through the list of free actions and how they are now minors we can come up with more examples of this. Every previous edition free actions let you move and with a quick draw being out your pistol. 2 simples got you a shot and cover or if taking cover wasn’t an action 2 shots and you just moved into cover. If I wasn’t clear I’m not talking about your move taking you past a corner where you inherently have cover but moving into cover so you can see the enemies be in position to do things next round etc.
Will yelling things to teammates be a minor action now or is speaking some unknown non action thing.
Edit to add my somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier was how many combat turns will it take to get out of a car. Minor action to unbuckle but if it’s wirelessly engaged you get a bonus moot action to unbuckle etc.
From what I´ve seen about the new Action Economy so far: Honestely, not too terrible. F.i., an unaugmented normie can do Move, Shoot, Cover OR Quickdraw, Shoot, Cover OR Move, Cover, Ready a big Gun OR ...
Yes, in all of these scenarios, you are one or two minors or even a major Action short for doing something really "cinematic". But guess what? Normal people don´t do cinematic stuff in firefight. But that´s something Streetsams and Adepts can still do.
And boi, they are not the big losers of the new action economy as many like to claim here. In 5E, un- (or lightly) augmented fighters often had a very good chance for a second IP: 5+ Reaction, 5+ Intuition, there you go: Unless your get injured, your second Pass is safe. The wired-up chars could get 3 or 4 IP for their Karma/Gear/Essence Investment, and if they flunked the Initiative roll, they even might have just 2 IP like most serious combatants. Yes, there´s much to do in one Initative Pass, but the most important thing is attacking, which you could do only once per IP. Spare simple/free Actions were usually used for stuff like aiming (which is basically just a part of the attack) or running.
So assuming a 5E wired Streetsam rolled a good Initiative Score and got himself 4 IP: That´s 4 Attacks for that combat round, provided that he doesn´t get tasered, injured etc. Meanwhile, an unaugmented ganger with a good base Initative could have an (almost) safe second IP, which equals 2 Attacks. That´s the same ratio as Streetsam with 2 additonal minors can get (as long as he has it´s weapons readied etc.). But wait, there´s more: In 5E, the streetsam couldn´t do 2 Attacks after another straight at the start of the Combat. After each of the first 2 Attacks, the ganger(s) have an oppoturnity to shoot back. The "rhythm" of the combat would be: Sam, Ganger, Sam, Ganger, Sam, Sam (end of Turn), while In 6E, it would be: Sam, Sam, Ganger (end of Turn), Sam, Sam, Ganger (end of Turn).
If the Sam already has his Assault rifle out and ready, he has two Attacks to do some serious damage right at the start of Combat. That´s a bigger difference than many of you might think.
And if you still think that wired characters get the short end of the stick in 6E, just one word: Blitz . With one point of Edge, every little goon could roll 5 ID and go all cinematic on your ass. That´s gone as well, an rightfully so. (Though I do think that another Edge option to buy 1 or max. 2 additional Minor Actions would be a good idea to give both wired and unwired chars more flexibility for one combat turn. Maybe that´s something for the Combat supplement?)
Thanks for this! I haven’t had time to crunch those numbers myself, and it was something I was a little worried about. But it looks like things stay roughly the same as now, or actually get a little better for the combat monsters. Plus now you’re unaugmented mage doesn’t have to go and make a sandwich while the sam takes his 17 init passes (in 3 seconds time). ;D
-
That doesn't sound so bad.
Hopefully this trend continues and 6E plays a lot better than it sounds now.
Has there been any word on the Matrix so far?
Not really. The Quickstart rules have a very simplified thing for the matrix, apparently not even delving in the VR. One of the biggest things though is that marks are gone, vastly improving the action economy and in combat viability of Deckers.
Thank good for that. Marks or in 4e basic, security, admin. Just slowed everything down. And frequently by the time the decker could do something it was already over.
-
That doesn't sound so bad.
Hopefully this trend continues and 6E plays a lot better than it sounds now.
Has there been any word on the Matrix so far?
Not really. The Quickstart rules have a very simplified thing for the matrix, apparently not even delving in the VR. One of the biggest things though is that marks are gone, vastly improving the action economy and in combat viability of Deckers.
Thank good for that. Marks or in 4e basic, security, admin. Just slowed everything down. And frequently by the time the decker could do something it was already over.
Deckers have always been my first love of Shadowrun and I’m really hoping they dial it in good this time. They seem to almost have it in fifth but the marks just didn’t work mechanically. Thematically though they are still pretty awesome and I’ll probably leave them in for descriptive purposes.
-
but house rules are the ultimate best answer because it should be about tailoring the experience to your group so everyone has fun not a debate session with a bunch of rules lawyers
This is an opinion I'll never truly understand.
Why is it that ttrpg is one of the only industries (along with software development) we, as paying customers are encouraged to enable developers to be lazy and incomplete?
This is not applied anywhere else.
"You bought a house and it was missing windows? No problem! Just put them in yourself. It isn't so hard!" (It really isn't.)
"You bought a car and it is missing a steering wheel? Just make your own!" (This one runs into safety laws, I admit.)
And just in case those two are too high priced to be apples to apples:
"You ordered a chicken sandwich at your favorite fast food joint and got a burger instead? Just make your own chicken to eat instead!"
-
That doesn't sound so bad.
Hopefully this trend continues and 6E plays a lot better than it sounds now.
Has there been any word on the Matrix so far?
Not really. The Quickstart rules have a very simplified thing for the matrix, apparently not even delving in the VR. One of the biggest things though is that marks are gone, vastly improving the action economy and in combat viability of Deckers.
Thank good for that. Marks or in 4e basic, security, admin. Just slowed everything down. And frequently by the time the decker could do something it was already over.
Deckers have always been my first love of Shadowrun and I’m really hoping they dial it in good this time. They seem to almost have it in fifth but the marks just didn’t work mechanically. Thematically though they are still pretty awesome and I’ll probably leave them in for descriptive purposes.
I wish they’d get rid of wireless on/off. Either it’s always on or that is what makes a deck a deck in that they can hack non wireless items in range.
As a GM I default to all the enemies having it on initially until the hacker does too much damage.
At least with no free actions turning it off takes a action. While I want free actions. That shouldn’t have been one of them.
-
but house rules are the ultimate best answer because it should be about tailoring the experience to your group so everyone has fun not a debate session with a bunch of rules lawyers
This is an opinion I'll never truly understand.
Why is it that ttrpg is one of the only industries (along with software development) we, as paying customers are encouraged to enable developers to be lazy and incomplete?
This is not applied anywhere else.
"You bought a house and it was missing windows? No problem! Just put them in yourself. It isn't so hard!" (It really isn't.)
"You bought a car and it is missing a steering wheel? Just make your own!" (This one runs into safety laws, I admit.)
And just in case those two are too high priced to be apples to apples:
"You ordered a chicken sandwich at your favorite fast food joint and got a burger instead? Just make your own chicken to eat instead!"
While I generally am opposed to the good GM will fix it idea. House rules are assumed because every table is different in what they want from a game. I one game can hit all those points.
Ideally if a game has a coherent enough system you can plug house rules in easily to tailor it to your table. Which is where I guess I draw the line. House rules are great for tailoring it to your table. Not a fan of using them to fix broken mechanics.
-
That doesn't sound so bad.
Hopefully this trend continues and 6E plays a lot better than it sounds now.
Has there been any word on the Matrix so far?
Not really. The Quickstart rules have a very simplified thing for the matrix, apparently not even delving in the VR. One of the biggest things though is that marks are gone, vastly improving the action economy and in combat viability of Deckers.
Thank good for that. Marks or in 4e basic, security, admin. Just slowed everything down. And frequently by the time the decker could do something it was already over.
Deckers have always been my first love of Shadowrun and I’m really hoping they dial it in good this time. They seem to almost have it in fifth but the marks just didn’t work mechanically. Thematically though they are still pretty awesome and I’ll probably leave them in for descriptive purposes.
I wish they’d get rid of wireless on/off. Either it’s always on or that is what makes a deck a deck in that they can hack non wireless items in range.
As a GM I default to all the enemies having it on initially until the hacker does too much damage.
At least with no free actions turning it off takes a action. While I want free actions. That shouldn’t have been one of them.
Hell, people nowadays don’t ever turn their wireless devices off. By 2070 I’d be willing to bet most people don’t even know how to outside of the ultra paranoid, ne’er-do-wells, and the occasional Luddite.
Flavor texting fifth implied that people walking around with wireless turned off could draw scrutiny from various security forces assuming they were up to no good.
-
Yeah, I don't buy critiques about wireless bonuses and wireless functionality in general... Why don't people in the 6th World "sensibly" turn all their drek to wireless off? Because they already don't do it in the real world. Just ask Alexa. Or Siri. Or Google.
-
Yeah, I don't buy critiques about wireless bonuses and wireless functionality in general... Why don't people in the 6th World "sensibly" turn all their drek to wireless off? Because they already don't do it in the real world. Just ask Alexa. Or Siri. Or Google.
Too be fair the discussion is usually centered around things like security teams who likely would have a higher degree of paranoia.
-
Yeah, I don't buy critiques about wireless bonuses and wireless functionality in general... Why don't people in the 6th World "sensibly" turn all their drek to wireless off? Because they already don't do it in the real world. Just ask Alexa. Or Siri. Or Google.
I asked Siri this. She said she didn't understand.
Yeah, I don't buy critiques about wireless bonuses and wireless functionality in general... Why don't people in the 6th World "sensibly" turn all their drek to wireless off? Because they already don't do it in the real world. Just ask Alexa. Or Siri. Or Google.
I'd imagine it'd vary depending on the parent corp and profesional rating. I'd figure your average Knight Errant patrol unit or Renraku security team wouldn't be allowed to even under threat of hack, but a Firewatch team or unit of Red Samurai... You bet they'd turn that off if needed.
-
but house rules are the ultimate best answer because it should be about tailoring the experience to your group so everyone has fun not a debate session with a bunch of rules lawyers
This is an opinion I'll never truly understand.
Why is it that ttrpg is one of the only industries (along with software development) we, as paying customers are encouraged to enable developers to be lazy and incomplete?
This is not applied anywhere else.
"You bought a house and it was missing windows? No problem! Just put them in yourself. It isn't so hard!" (It really isn't.)
"You bought a car and it is missing a steering wheel? Just make your own!" (This one runs into safety laws, I admit.)
And just in case those two are too high priced to be apples to apples:
"You ordered a chicken sandwich at your favorite fast food joint and got a burger instead? Just make your own chicken to eat instead!"
Just curious then, have you never played a card game, board game, heck how about any type of game where you didn't have a house rule of some kind? even back yard tag is different depending on who is playing.
Now I will agree with you it is not our place as gm's or players to fix big blatant holes in a game by using house rules ... but that is not what we are talking about here. EVERYTHING being discussed here so far is a matter off opinion when you boil it down to the root cause. The question is does it give each of you the exact experience you want/need from Shadowrun ... obviously not (or at least on the surface not for those that still need to see behind the curtain) ... and that is where houserules come in. Change it to match your style of play, or need to to come to some kind of compromise for your group so things stay consistent because something was left vague ... go for it. Do whatever it takes to have FUN ... it is a cooperative social game after all, not a competition.
-
Skills in 6E are more broader and thus more valuable than the more specialized skills in previous Editions. The increased price tag is justified with or without an increase in Karma awards.
You clearly feel that way, I suspect many in the player base will feel very differently. I certainly think otherwise.
That being said, the suggested Karma (and Nuyen!) awards in previous Editions have always been to low. You often started with a pretty optimized and powerfull character right from the get go, but it takes a lot of gaming sessions to noticable advance your char. And a rating*months training time surely isn´t very helpfull regarding this problem. However, we don´t know yet if these training intervalls have to untinterrupted downtime sessions (that would be terrible!) and how they intervalls can be modified by stuff like lifestyle choices, professional trainers etc. Maybe in 6E, contacts that can teach you new stuff or paid courses will finally be worthwhile?
But I agree, that long training intervall is a kind of sour first impression for the direction of character advancements in 6E. And there would actually be a lot to improve, because character advancements (in contrast to character building) wasn´t a strong suit of the last 2 Editions of Shadowrun either. Progressive pricing for Attribute and Skill enhancements, in combination with a character creations system with liniar advancement cost, is a big incentive for players to min-max at character creation and buy mostly cheap side skills and perks later in the game. Monetary Advancements (Gear, Augmentations...) were even more problematic than Karma Advancement. Stuff like Augmentations and Decking equipment was raised in cost in 5E, so if you played one of these Archetypes, you usually took the best you could afford at chargen and never upgraded it. And if you actually did save up your Money to buy a Rating 3 Synaptic Booster or a High-Level Deck, it really stretched the plausibility of the character´s motiviation: "Wow, I´ve saved up more money than a wageslave will earn in their entire live. I could buy a house. I could get out of this dangerous life in the shadows. But I´d rather spend that small fortune to put more chrome inside me so I´m a little bit better suited when I continue my dangerous life in the shadows" Hard to justify without qualities like Augmentation Addiction, Thrillseeker etc. Meanwhile, "Paranormals" like Mages, Adepts and, to a degree, Technomancers, often had troubles to find meaningfull ways to spend their money. The price for most other types of equipment, and especially magical equipment, was way too low and there was rarely a (financial) reason to not take the best you can get.
Because of this, I also really hope that top-tier weapons of a certain category will have a more punishing price tag than in the previous Editions. Taking the Ares Alpha was a no-brainer in 5E: Yes , it´s sooooo more expensive than a low-tier Assualt rifle - but compared to a new Augmentation, it´s still dirt cheap and gives you a lot more noticable advantages.
I was in a thread not long ago where peeps made good arguments that skill raising was largely just not happening in 5e, and this is going to make it several times worse as you have said. If 6e goes anywhere; a cause which this certainly isn't helping in anyway, the training rules are probably just going to be completely ignore or just house ruled, I expect missions play will issue some level of compromise, hopefully that will be useful. Can anyone explain how this made it through play testing? It leaves me frankly stunned. Did the play tests not run a campaign? No player went from 6 to a 7 and said some like this taking longer then half a year could be an issue? Given the time scale of SR this just means no one would ever really raise skills. maybe one is possible? Is that what is intended? Systematic Character growth is only intended to be gear and spec equivalents?
Even cops and soldiers have to spend X hours a month at the firing range, even if they pull their gun everyday. If you want to go realistic, every month you don't use a skill should decrease it's rank by 1.
Now there is some good old fashion simulationist game rules. Perhaps hold on to that logic for an armor and melee weapon fix?
-
notes on advancement (specifically skills)
Yes karma cost are higher, basically on par with skills groups ... because well they are basically skill groups now .. also the same cost as attributes
Specializations and expertise cost are pretty cheap ... same cost as a spell
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
Wait what? The rules for training time aren't actually rules? Then why are they in the book at all?
Are there are other rules that are purely suggestions we should be aware of?
-
The group should then discuss if there are any house rules they would like to implement. These are specific instances where the group decides to play the game differently than how it is written. These should be established prior to the first game being played to avoid confusion.
-
notes on advancement (specifically skills)
Yes karma cost are higher, basically on par with skills groups ... because well they are basically skill groups now .. also the same cost as attributes
Specializations and expertise cost are pretty cheap ... same cost as a spell
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
Wait what? The rules for training time aren't actually rules? Then why are they in the book at all?
Are there are other rules that are purely suggestions we should be aware of?
Optional rules aren’t that unusual. Though why anyone thought month per was a good start for the optional rule I got nothing. You go on 5 runs and finally save enough karma to bump your firearms from 5 to 6. You spend it and begin training let’s be nice and say 1 run a month, presumedly if it’s one a month they are kind of big runs and not mission sized so maybe 2 sessions per run. 3 months in real life pass before you finally get to see that thing you saved for and bought.
This isn’t Old school d&d where you are building your name level fortress or creating a powerful magic item. You are doing a ridiculously mundane task. Bumping a skill a bit. Even in a simulationist game that would be really hard to guess how long that would take. Quite a few people advance in skill quickly and something like that might only take days not months.
I can’t see the fun in it either way. By the time the 6 months in game passed the player probably forgot he even paid for it and has earned buckets of karma they have no desire to spend since they won’t see it.
-
Now I will agree with you it is not our place as gm's or players to fix big blatant holes in a game by using house rules ... but that is not what we are talking about here.
Except it is.
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
So, the not-rule in the book, is deliberately - and explicitly - stated as not being a rule.
And you, with your signature that indicates that you are speaking with some connection to - if not authority of - CGL are telling paying customers that they have to do the work to finish the rules.
That is bovine drek.
Straight. Up. Bo. Vine. Drek.
The only saving grace of this, is you at least warned potential customers that 6e could very well be handeled just like 5e.
"Fix the rules? Why would we do that? We already got paid, sucka! We will simply string you along for a few years, and then release a new unfinished set of rules that we expect y'all to buy up."
To be 100% fair, the errata team for 5e did try to the fullest extent of their abilities. They weren't allowed to succeed.
-
All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules. I think you are blowing this out of proportion.
-
Now I will agree with you it is not our place as gm's or players to fix big blatant holes in a game by using house rules ... but that is not what we are talking about here.
Except it is.
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
So, the not-rule in the book, is deliberately - and explicitly - stated as not being a rule.
Then tell us oh great swami who has seen the future with the street released book and played games with it, what rule exactly is incomplete and in what way exactly is it incomplete.
The last few pages of this thread has indeed be speculation on the QUICK START rules we know of and the hints about full rules dropped, including discussing house rules we have used and may or may-not need.
I’m not sure what it is your mad about, that many of us have dared change the rules as written to better fit our players and game? Or that there’s an optional rule suggestion in the upcoming CRB? It’s been a common practice for ttrpgs to do such for at least 30 years now.
If you hate the company and it’s people and it’s people as much as it seems, why are you playing their game?
-
Hey Fast Jack?
I have had beefs with 5E since its introduction at Origins 2013. I had to redo my official Missions character at least four times.
But, it seems to me that most of the beefs about 6E are a trifle premature.
It's one thing to read endless foolishness about Perceiving Magic in 5E, p.280, for example, in this forum, but we can all read the nitpicking stupidity at work.
It's another to make blanket statements without having something actually to read.
I believe my Neo-Tokyo Missions character will have more at stake in how 6E turns out than 99% of the others in play. My character is that extreme. But. I am going to save my bellyaching until I get the bad news in print.
So, Fast Jack? Tell these buffoons to tone it down. Or why not suspend them for a while?
-
While I’m sure people should tone it down, calling people buffoons probably isn’t helping.
-
I believe my Neo-Tokyo Missions character will have more at stake in how 6E turns out than 99% of the others in play. My character is that extreme. But. I am going to save my bellyaching until I get the bad news in print.
Well, any character concept relying on options from beyond the 5e CRB is unavoidably going to have issues converting to a CRB-only 6e.
-
... calling people buffoons probably isn’t helping.
True. but what if it quacks like a duck?
-
Well, any character concept relying on options from beyond the 5e CRB is unavoidably going to have issues converting to a CRB-only 6e.
All too true. :(
-
All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules. I think you are blowing this out of proportion.
The issues is not optional rules or house rules perse.
The issues are optional rules dressed as suggested norms with no true alternatives suggested.
An optional rule is just normally something to change the way the game is played in a flavor or tactical sense.
Such as RG1-RG5 in "Run and Gun", or the expanded lifestyle rules in "Run Faster"
And are not presented as this is how we set it up in the base rules, but you don't have to use it.
House rules are fine if they are imposed to bring a working game inline with the tables preference in play-style.
But I can not support the idea that a company should count on players to create house rules to fix issues with their game.
Just to be clear CGL has never made this statement so I will give them the benefit of the doubt that this is not their official response.
But This is why I will not support the idea that if a game mechanic is perceived to be broken by a large group of players the answer is just to house rule it.
To me this is a lazy answer to this issues, and promotes an air of non-concern or indifferent for the players bases prescription of the game, be it a small number or a large number which is hard to determine from just a forum or a few review site reviews. On both sides of this you have to remember that most posters here come from groups of players (The campaigning group) that can range from just the reader to 6-8 people in number. so to dismiss every comment as just a squeaky wheel is wrong and can be devastating to a game (D&D 4th anyone).
The point is if as MC stated, their are whole pages of players complaining about the system("It sucks") as it stands, and only a few are praising it, there may be a issues there that "Just House Rule it" will not solve.
I have started this ad nauseum, but I don't think 6th is a horrible attempt at a Shadowrun game system.
I just feel that it has issues about where the priorities are with the mechanics.
Edge could be a wonderful addition to the game if it was not the core mechanic that it's presented as.
I'm not even say it should be only an optional rule, but I don't logically see it as a complete replacement for the modifiers system or portraying the effects of armor, etc.
It is a bonus mechanic nothing more, so it fails massively as a modifier mechanic which needs to work effective both way and not just in the positive.
Just to be clear "0" is not an effective negative, nor is the defender gets a bonus and you don't when the bonus by itself (without existing edge) Doesn't come close to emulating the penalties that it is replacing.
-
Well let's dial down the optional rule talk, at least with regards to training times. Because it's not an optional rule to deviate from what the "rule" is in 6e.
Look back at what Banshee said (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29154.msg518130#msg518130). The "rule" is the training times are whatever you want them to be, but here's a chart anyway with but a simple suggestion.
-
All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules.
(Emphasis added)
Precisely.
As a community, we have fostered an environment where we shame other paying customers into enabling lazy designing.
Perhaps I've been spoiled by quality design companies that strive to produce a complete and correct core rules. And then release optional rules that are clearly labeled as such, so the consumer can make an informed decision.
That shouldn't be the exception.
The core rulebook should not be a Mad Lib (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Libs) passed off as a complete - even if basic - system.
We should not have to pay someone else and then need to complete the game for ourselves.
That is not the same as tailoring it to our own tastes, that is something separate. The core rules need to be clearly defined because the age of "home game" is disappearing. With living games and online tabletops becoming increasingly more common, all prospective GMs need to know precisely what the core rules are so they can present potential players with a clear list of changes they are making to their personal game.
This way, prospective players can make an informed decision (or choose not to) before joining the game.
Prospective players should not be required to submit individual questionairs to GMs to find out how they filled in each blank.
-
All RPGs in the last 20 years or so have optional rules and expect some levels of house rules.
(Emphasis added)
Precisely.
As a community, we have fostered an environment where we shame other paying customers into enabling lazy designing.
Perhaps I've been spoiled by quality design companies that strive to produce a complete and correct core rules. And then release optional rules that are clearly labeled as such, so the consumer can make an informed decision.
That shouldn't be the exception.
The core rulebook should not be a Mad Lib (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Libs) passed off as a complete - even if basic - system.
We should not have to pay someone else and then need to complete the game for ourselves.
That is not the same as tailoring it to our own tastes, that is something separate. The core rules need to be clearly defined because the age of "home game" is disappearing. With living games and online tabletops becoming increasingly more common, all prospective GMs need to know precisely what the core rules are so they can present potential players with a clear list of changes they are making to their personal game.
This way, prospective players can make an informed decision (or choose not to) before joining the game.
Prospective players should not be required to submit individual questionairs to GMs to find out how they filled in each blank.
+1
-
..OK caught about half of tonight's live play session (was busy in the kitchen).
When the sidebar chat moved to purchasing/upgrading skills I found another major downside. Instead of it taking 2 Karma x skill rating to learn/improve a skill, it now takes 5 Karma. Furthermore the time span is increased from days x rating (1 - 4) and weeks x rating (5+) to one full month x skill rating. This will really stifle character advancement particularly in a homebrew to the point your character will be relatively "static" for a long time. It will also likely mean few characters will take anything above a Low lifestyle as it could get costly (increasing your firearms skill to say, 6 suddenly costs you 12,000¥ at a low lifestyle plus the training cost). So much for what you made on that last run that you wanted to put away for that new piece of chrome or wetware.
The time factor will not have as much an impact in missions play as you can take as much downtime as needed between sessions however the resources impact will still be there. For example my character Leela who has a middle lifestyle, getting that rating 6 in a single skill would cost 30 Karma and 30,000¥ (about the price for a degree at a state college!).
The way it was explained is that all skills are now skill groups and sub-classes (like say Pistols) are now specialisations that still require you to have the base group skill. It wasn't explained how much it cost on time and Karma for specialisations and how far one could increase them (I came away with the impression that you need to raise the core skill first to improve the specialisation further). If Karma awards are about the same as they currently are in 5E, it would mean very, very slow character advancement overall. I don't know how others feel, but if I devote weeks if not months to playing and really don't see my character improving very much, I'll bag it and go find some other way to spend my time that is more rewarding (or just stay with 5E).
Just Wow. Why put in a rule that's going to have to be completely ignored? That's just doesn't make any sense. How did that get through play test?
As to the raising cost did they increase karma awards to go with it?
...that is something I didn't get a chance to ask before the session was over. 5 karma x rating to raise a skill, better off raising the base linked attribute, and if you are not awakened, augmenting it.
-
Well if your skill is 1 or something might be better to improve the skill. But that’s the flaw in a attribute+skill system if the costs don’t make the skill much cheaper. The attribute is the better deal and that creates a funky world with a bunch of peak human characters running around.
-
Name calling isn’t useful and it is against the user agreement, so just don’t do it.
-
Name calling isn’t useful and it is against the user agreement, so just don’t do it.
Not disagreeing with you in anyway, but the name calling was quite a few post ago and was address by multiple poster.
It just did not feel right to me to bring it back to the forefront again.
-
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
Missions characters / GMs are stuck with RAW unless the Missions team makes a change.
And "Just Houserule it" isn't really a good answer for a lot of reasons.
And tracking training time on a spreadsheet isn't fun for 95% or so of the playerbase I'm guessing.
...that is my concern. Yes, you can take as much time between sessions as you need as long as you you note it on your character's Missions calendar and pay the appropriate lifestyle cost. This was done so awakened characters could initiate, a process according to RAW, that cannot be interrupted or you have to start from square one again.
For homebrews, even given that a character can improve a skill or attribute while taking breaks for jobs (unless that is changed), it still ends up resulting a long slow process of advancement which can become frustrating to the player. It may be more like "RL", but this is a TTRPG, which is supposed to be an entertaining diversion from the "ho hum" drudgery of the real world.
Personally, I like the having skills more split up. It makes for a more believable skillset. For example, I used to be able to perform on keyboard instruments (before arthritis set in), but play a trombone or orchestral flute? Not on your life. I didn't have to know how to play every orchestral instrument in order to learn just the piano and harpsichord as a "specialisation."
-
Now I will agree with you it is not our place as gm's or players to fix big blatant holes in a game by using house rules ... but that is not what we are talking about here.
Except it is.
as for training times ... they are purely a suggestion and explicitly states that, so if you think they are too much cut them back
So, the not-rule in the book, is deliberately - and explicitly - stated as not being a rule.
Then tell us oh great swami who has seen the future with the street released book and played games with it, what rule exactly is incomplete and in what way exactly is it incomplete.
The last few pages of this thread has indeed be speculation on the QUICK START rules we know of and the hints about full rules dropped, including discussing house rules we have used and may or may-not need.
I’m not sure what it is your mad about, that many of us have dared change the rules as written to better fit our players and game? Or that there’s an optional rule suggestion in the upcoming CRB? It’s been a common practice for ttrpgs to do such for at least 30 years now.
If you hate the company and it’s people and it’s people as much as it seems, why are you playing their game?
..the live play sessions on Shadowcaster Network are using the full CRB rules, not the Quick Start rules. This is where I am getting my information from.
-
I believe my Neo-Tokyo Missions character will have more at stake in how 6E turns out than 99% of the others in play. My character is that extreme. But. I am going to save my bellyaching until I get the bad news in print.
Well, any character concept relying on options from beyond the 5e CRB is unavoidably going to have issues converting to a CRB-only 6e.
...this is one reason why I quit NT as what point is there in taking the time to build up a character through Karma and ¥ when midway in, I have to "downgrade" her back to only what's available in the CRB?
-
So just watched the new SCN play-thru, and I must say I become even less impressed with the edge system.
Points made.
1. Edge seems to function less as an incentive to find cover and act tactically, then to enforce build types.
2. Was hard for players not build to gain edge to get edge, playing anything but an edge gainer seem to be discouraged, The system seems to encourage but punish edge gaining tactics, ie. mages summoning spirits to gain edge, gank the mage tactics.
3. Per the rule, GMs are warned not to award edge for these actions if not in the natural course of the game flow.
While I agree that a player should not be rewarded for gaming the system, if by design it is hard for players to play a PC that is not designed specifically to play to the edge system there is a design flaw. A reward system should provide a reward not be a requirement to play.
I have to say that the response to the game I hear in their voices and see on their faces doesn't fill me with hope for the game.
Those are the looks I have seen from my player group when we played games like "One Ring", "FFG Star Wars", etc. before I was asked to switch to another game.
P.S. was responding from my phone and it seems whole sentences where lost, fixed now.
-
Go away for a few hours to spend with family...
Everyone relax a bit. If you find yourself needing to name-call, or call rules drek, or any other nonsense, I will lock the board and send out warnings to all offenders, even if not the reason the thread gets locked. We are all adults and can discuss things like adults or walk away from our keyboards.
-
Go away for a few hours to spend with family...
Everyone relax a bit. If you find yourself needing to name-call, or call rules drek, or any other nonsense, I will lock the board and send out warnings to all offenders, even if not the reason the thread gets locked. We are all adults and can discuss things like adults or walk away from our keyboards.
Just clarifying if my response was calling the rules drek?
P.S. And just so I'm clear I mean this with all due respect just making sure if it was so I don't make the error again.
-
...that is my concern. Yes, you can take as much time between sessions as you need as long as you you note it on your character's Missions calendar and pay the appropriate lifestyle cost. This was done so awakened characters could initiate, a process according to RAW, that cannot be interrupted or you have to start from square one again.
Doesn't the Missions team decide what Missions will be using before switching to the new rules though? ??? If the one month of downtime is just a suggestion, then wont they have the actual time they want hammered out before they make the switch to 6th edition? Also don't they have a process in place to review any rules that may need changes for Missions balance reasons? I have no idea how Shadowrun organized play is run, but other games' organized play tend to have those processes in place so that they can deal with needed changes.
-
Go away for a few hours to spend with family...
Everyone relax a bit. If you find yourself needing to name-call, or call rules drek, or any other nonsense, I will lock the board and send out warnings to all offenders, even if not the reason the thread gets locked. We are all adults and can discuss things like adults or walk away from our keyboards.
Just clarifying if my response was calling the rules drek?
P.S. And just so I'm clear I mean this with all due respect just making sure if it was so I don't make the error again.
That among other comments from multiple posters.
-
...that is my concern. Yes, you can take as much time between sessions as you need as long as you you note it on your character's Missions calendar and pay the appropriate lifestyle cost. This was done so awakened characters could initiate, a process according to RAW, that cannot be interrupted or you have to start from square one again.
Doesn't the Missions team decide what Missions will be using before switching to the new rules though? ??? If the one month of downtime is just a suggestion, then wont they have the actual time they want hammered out before they make the switch to 6th edition? Also don't they have a process in place to review any rules that may need changes for Missions balance reasons? I have no idea how Shadowrun organized play is run, but other games' organized play tend to have those processes in place so that they can deal with needed changes.
Yes, and as I stated in my original post that was only partially quoted above. We as the Missions team will set the parameters for Missions play ... especially for training time. We are currently working on conversions and what to do story line wise moving forward then we will get the 6E rules guidelines ready
-
...that is my concern. Yes, you can take as much time between sessions as you need as long as you you note it on your character's Missions calendar and pay the appropriate lifestyle cost. This was done so awakened characters could initiate, a process according to RAW, that cannot be interrupted or you have to start from square one again.
Doesn't the Missions team decide what Missions will be using before switching to the new rules though? ??? If the one month of downtime is just a suggestion, then wont they have the actual time they want hammered out before they make the switch to 6th edition? Also don't they have a process in place to review any rules that may need changes for Missions balance reasons? I have no idea how Shadowrun organized play is run, but other games' organized play tend to have those processes in place so that they can deal with needed changes.
Yes, and as I stated in my original post that was only partially quoted above. We as the Missions team will set the parameters for Missions play ... especially for training time. We are currently working on conversions and what to do story line wise moving forward then we will get the 6E rules guidelines ready
I’d make it negligible or remove it. I do t think it adds anything of value to a game to have a player save up karma to buy a increase which already imo reflects training time then tell them you got to wait x time before it kicks in.
-
Training times in effect add a monetary cost to character advancement by way of lifestyle payments.
-
Training times in effect add a monetary cost to character advancement by way of lifestyle payments.
I consider that a negative as it punishes gear/ware focussed characters disproportionately.
-
Training times in effect add a monetary cost to character advancement by way of lifestyle payments.
I consider that a negative as it punishes gear/ware focussed characters disproportionately.
I do as well. Particularly for SRM. There's already too-little incentive to pay more than the absolute minimum Lifestyle required (Squatter). Want to enjoy your hard won spoils and live it up at High lifestyle? Better save up 10K per month you need to spend in training...
-
Since I don't like what I see in the game and from the last red post I see CGL position on that.
I will be take my leave from this discussion.
-
...even should a change me made to address training time/cost for Missions, the higher Karma cost for skill advancement still means slower character progression as the average Karma award is generally 5 - 6 per session (provided he team doesn't hose the job which I have seen occur). That would mean if you are looking to improve a skill from say 4 - 5, it would take 4 - 5 sessions to bank up enough Karma to do so. that's basically a month or more of "real time" (if sessions are held on a weekly basis) to see any character improvement.
-
Personally, I don't mind a slower progression on non-Level based systems. Now that being said, if Missions escalate the threat at the same rate it should be fine but if threat escalation is too quick it would be a problem. Personally, I would like to see a Threat level gauge for missions. Not one that tells you what you can and can not play like the old tier system but just a label telling the GM and players what threat level they are getting into and let them then decide how cautious they wish to be. Basically more like a module rating like movies have. This module is ultra-Violet be warned.
-
The skill advancement isn't that far off from what it is now, it's just that with the skill squish each skill is around 3 or so from before. Raising three separate skills in 5th was equivalent to skill rank x 6 (SR x 2 for each). Keeping it at x2 would have been too quick on advancement with the broader scope of skills. Personally I'd have probably gone with x4. Still, you may not be buying a new rank as often, but you get more bang for your buck when you do.
Wonder if there will be a sidebar for "So you want more skills in your game"
-
The skill advancement isn't that far off from what it is now, it's just that with the skill squish each skill is around 3 or so from before. Raising three separate skills in 5th was equivalent to skill rank x 6 (SR x 2 for each). Keeping it at x2 would have been too quick on advancement with the broader scope of skills. Personally I'd have probably gone with x4. Still, you may not be buying a new rank as often, but you get more bang for your buck when you do.
Wonder if there will be a sidebar for "So you want more skills in your game"
It’s hard to guess without seeing karma advancement and what else is there. Apparently attributes are the same x5 which means compared to them they are too expensive. But how much compared to other items is hard to see. Is raising firearms from 5 to 6 really the same as 6 spells for example.
-
Wonder if there will be a sidebar for "So you want more skills in your game"
I think with the streamlining that they wanted to do with the core book to get the page count down, it would be advisable to not get your hopes on that being in the core book. Though I would think that optional systems and rules to expand the game will make a Runners guide or ST book.
-
...and therein is the bottom line.
-
Wonder if there will be a sidebar for "So you want more skills in your game"
I think with the streamlining that they wanted to do with the core book to get the page count down, it would be advisable to not get your hopes on that being in the core book. Though I would think that optional systems and rules to expand the game will make a Runners guide or ST book.
Oh I’m good. 5th got way to heavy on active skill bloat, and not enough points for knowledge skills. Runners companion I could see such coming up though.
-
Oh I’m good. 5th got way to heavy on active skill bloat, and not enough points for knowledge skills. Runners companion I could see such coming up though.
And packing everything back into skill groups and making knowledges/languages into binary options is gonna solve the problem?
More active skills promoted role protection and differentiated specialties within Archetypes. Further this will doubtlessly result in lower skill budget in Priority Creation. Which given SR predisposition towards Jack of all trade characters means odds are we going to see lower pools across the board. Where Edge in previous editions allowed those characters to be effective, we will be in the new edge system do you think it will be as successful as the old one in those regards? I pray some of the edge uses we haven't seen effect initiative. If not I'm fearful for the Jack builds.
-
Oh I’m good. 5th got way to heavy on active skill bloat, and not enough points for knowledge skills. Runners companion I could see such coming up though.
And packing everything back into skill groups and making knowledges/languages into binary options is gonna solve the problem?
More active skills promoted role protection and differentiated specialties within Archetypes. Further this will doubtlessly result in lower skill budget in Priority Creation. Which given SR predisposition towards Jack of all trade characters means odds are we going to see lower pools across the board. Where Edge in previous editions allowed those characters to be effective, we will be in the new edge system do you think it will be as successful as the old one in those regards? I pray some of the edge uses we haven't seen effect initiative. If not I'm fearful for the Jack builds.
..I agree.
In my missions group a Jack of all Trades character often comes in very handy. Yeah OK, he/she may not be able to cast spells or deck, but can still fill in skill voids as well as assist other characters in teamwork tests. After all, isn't a team supposed to be a "team" that works together instead of a group of "me's"?
-
Oh I’m good. 5th got way to heavy on active skill bloat, and not enough points for knowledge skills. Runners companion I could see such coming up though.
And packing everything back into skill groups and making knowledges/languages into binary options is gonna solve the problem?
That depends heavily on player preference. But it certainly is a way to approach that problem.
Language skills as a binary option is a good move imho. It's very difficult to represent a certain skill level of a language in RP, for the GM and the players. It's at least as difficult as it is in real life. People approach languages from a lot of different angles. But I think somebody else already made that argument in this thread.
I'm not as certain when it comes to knowledge skills. But in practice, we had similiar debates when we discussed how much a character knew about the yakuzas with a knowledge level of 2, as we had with language levels.
We are used to represent knowledge in levels irl, but I don't think it's the smartest move in play, when most players and GMs know very little about the languages/skills they play.
I think the specialization and expertise option counters the perceived lack of variety in active skills at least a little bit. Maybe it will make specializations more common then they used to be (at least in my games).
As for the usefulness of the Jack of All Trades players, I don't know whether that's really that big of a problem. Having real specialists on the team at least avoids stepping on other player's toes/areas of expertise. And I find it helpful for RP and fun, when players have to depend on each other for the task ahead. Teamwork means the combination of different skills for a common goal just as much as assisting each other on a specific task.
Also "real" Jack of All Trades are barely possible in SR5. Most Jacks I knew had 2 or 3 skills overlapping with other players and where helpful when the others were busy or down. They still had their thing that only they were experts in, even if it was something less exciting.
-
As for the usefulness of the Jack of All Trades players, I don't know whether that's really that big of a problem. Having real specialists on the team at least avoids stepping on other player's toes/areas of expertise.
You are assuming some level of player-team based level of cooperation in character building. That isn't always the case. For some tangible subset of the playerbase, Missions is their only real outlet for playing. For them, not only is cooperative character building not always the case, it is almost non-existent.
Combine that with the likely reduction to the number of skill points at chargen*, and there is a real possibility of "cookie cutter" characters with the exact same skill builds. Do note: I am not suggesting said characters will play the same, just pointing out mechanically they would be nearly - if not exactly - the same.
*Purely speculation on my part. Sixth World cuts the number of active skills down to roughly a quarter, so players should not be surprised to see the number of skill points at chargen cut as dramatically. I'm not sure it will be by roughly a quarter, but here is what that would look like:
E => 5, D => 6, C => 7/1, B =9/2>. A => 11/3
(The number after the slash are "bonus points" from what used to be Skill Group points. With all skill becoming Skill Groups, I have no idea how those might work. Maybe Specialization only points?)
-
On a first glance, the edge effects don´t look really convincing, especially the 1 Edge - 1 Dice - reroll.
However, I wouldn´t underestimate the fact that you can choose when and for what particular effect you want to spend Edge. 1 Edge != 1 Dice.
Can anyone tell how this 2 Edge-Limit works? Is that really part of the rules? Is it just for one Action or one Pass? Or is it really for the whole combat turn? Because holy shit would that be stupid ::)
first there are no passes anymore, everyone just gets the one turn per round
as for the other .. wording is confusing and it is on our errata list to get clarification (they way it reads could be per action or per round) .. we are pushing for it to be per action since that is how we play tested it
Well, here´s to hope that they´ll keep it as you playtested it!
2 Edge per turn of a given player (that´s what I meant with pass ;)) would be almost understandable (it would mostly only affect the fast chars anyways), but if it´s really 2 for the whole round, it would be such a terrible choice: Once you get your 2 Edge from whatever sources, your magical mojo point armor wouldn´t even generate more magical mojo points. Be quick, earn your 2 Edge and you really might have gone in naked. It´s also a bit harder to keep the limitation in mind when it´s for the whole round instead of the foreseeable increment of a single Action or a single pass turn.
(I mean, not that I couldn´t or wouldn´t houserule that shit right away if it´s really 2 per round. But it would leave a seriously sour taste for many players if the official rules for this fancy new core mechanic would have such an enormous flaw...)
-
Oh I’m good. 5th got way to heavy on active skill bloat, and not enough points for knowledge skills. Runners companion I could see such coming up though.
And packing everything back into skill groups and making knowledges/languages into binary options is gonna solve the problem?
That depends heavily on player preference. But it certainly is a way to approach that problem.
Language skills as a binary option is a good move imho. It's very difficult to represent a certain skill level of a language in RP, for the GM and the players. It's at least as difficult as it is in real life. People approach languages from a lot of different angles. But I think somebody else already made that argument in this thread.
I'm not as certain when it comes to knowledge skills. But in practice, we had similiar debates when we discussed how much a character knew about the yakuzas with a knowledge level of 2, as we had with language levels.
We are used to represent knowledge in levels irl, but I don't think it's the smartest move in play, when most players and GMs know very little about the languages/skills they play.
I think the specialization and expertise option counters the perceived lack of variety in active skills at least a little bit. Maybe it will make specializations more common then they used to be (at least in my games).
As for the usefulness of the Jack of All Trades players, I don't know whether that's really that big of a problem. Having real specialists on the team at least avoids stepping on other player's toes/areas of expertise. And I find it helpful for RP and fun, when players have to depend on each other for the task ahead. Teamwork means the combination of different skills for a common goal just as much as assisting each other on a specific task.
Also "real" Jack of All Trades are barely possible in SR5. Most Jacks I knew had 2 or 3 skills overlapping with other players and where helpful when the others were busy or down. They still had their thing that only they were experts in, even if it was something less exciting.
Feel free to check out the character customization section. I spent a lot of time down that way, and we have many threads on jack of all trades. A lot of thought and work has gone into it. Jacks were both possible and done with several different methods in 5e.
-
On a first glance, the edge effects don´t look really convincing, especially the 1 Edge - 1 Dice - reroll.
However, I wouldn´t underestimate the fact that you can choose when and for what particular effect you want to spend Edge. 1 Edge != 1 Dice.
Can anyone tell how this 2 Edge-Limit works? Is that really part of the rules? Is it just for one Action or one Pass? Or is it really for the whole combat turn? Because holy shit would that be stupid ::)
first there are no passes anymore, everyone just gets the one turn per round
as for the other .. wording is confusing and it is on our errata list to get clarification (they way it reads could be per action or per round) .. we are pushing for it to be per action since that is how we play tested it
Well, here´s to hope that they´ll keep it as you playtested it!
2 Edge per turn of a given player (that´s what I meant with pass ;)) would be almost understandable (it would mostly only affect the fast chars anyways), but if it´s really 2 for the whole round, it would be such a terrible choice: Once you get your 2 Edge from whatever sources, your magical mojo point armor wouldn´t even generate more magical mojo points. Be quick, earn your 2 Edge and you really might have gone in naked. It´s also a bit harder to keep the limitation in mind when it´s for the whole round instead of the foreseeable increment of a single Action or a single pass turn.
(I mean, not that I couldn´t or wouldn´t houserule that shit right away if it´s really 2 per round. But it would leave a seriously sour taste for many players if the official rules for this fancy new core mechanic would have such an enormous flaw...)
Just the fact that this is at issue is deeply distressing. How is there a even a question on something that is so core to 6e?
-
Just the fact that this is at issue is deeply distressing. How is there a even a question on something that is so core to 6e?
It's two per Combat Round, and it's really quite clear when you read it in the book and not try to guess it from random vids on teh interwebs.
-
Just the fact that this is at issue is deeply distressing. How is there a even a question on something that is so core to 6e?
It's two per Combat Round, and it's really quite clear when you read it in the book and not try to guess it from random vids on teh interwebs.
+2 per set of actions/every 3 seconds sounds pretty reasonable.
-
Just the fact that this is at issue is deeply distressing. How is there a even a question on something that is so core to 6e?
It's two per Combat Round, and it's really quite clear when you read it in the book and not try to guess it from random vids on teh interwebs.
+2 per set of actions/every 3 seconds sounds pretty reasonable.
Not sure what you mean by set of actions. But if it’s per round it’s got some big issues imo as too many will have no effect on slower initiatives.
Shooty McShooterson goes on 23 firing his pistol at Mr Tank twice. Me tank gains two edge because of the AV well twice. Me tank has a strength of over 9000 he gains 0 edge when swinging his axe.
Reverse McShooterson gains 2 edge shooting paper mache man due to his awesome gun. He can gain no more edge this round, his armor won’t help him there even against bad attacks, darkness, high wind nothing helps him at all. Tactics etc became pointless for him because he can no longer gain edge.
-
+2 per set of actions/every 3 seconds sounds pretty reasonable.
From what I have seen so far two points seems pretty lack luster. One point by itself is for sure is not useful for the majority of cases. Maybe in the larger context of the full rules 2 points an action per every 3 seconds is reasonable may prove true. But I haven't seen anything that's really inclined me to believe that such a statement, and what I have seen to date discourages me from thinking so. Limits that are fixed and arbitrary, core systems that lack adjustable don't strike me as good design in general.
If good ware's primary advantage is that it hands out an Edge point under specific conditions, and players are choked on how many edge they can gain, it makes me question the value of that ware a lot. This is further complicated by the fact that we have at least one quality that flat out cancels the use of the edge system, that reduces my confidence still more.
-
I´m not sure if everyone is understanding the scope of this. It´s quite a difference whether the 2 Edge Limit applies to every (Major) action, every player´s turn , or for the whole round .
Action VS Turn isn´t that much of a difference though, as it would almost only apply to fast characters with more than one attack per turn. It´s actally somewhat reasonable to put a cap on the whole turn IMO, given that probably even some Minor Actions might generate Edge in the right circumstances.
But Round VS Action: Oh boy. That´s a big difference, and strictly for the worse. There are so many ways to generate Edge, through gear, perks, beneficial circumstance and even through armor (instead of - you know - protecting against damage?!), and many of these can apply both in your own turn and during the turn of other combatants. Putting a cap on the whole round means that, especially in huge battles, you´ll reach the cap really quick. Two goons shoot at you while you are in cover, there you go. Or you go first and earn the 2 Edge through your own actions. After reaching that cap, all the gear and powers and other perks that might give you an Edge don´t matter any more. And armor and cover will, at best, help you deny Edge gain for the opposition. But they will probably have reached their limit as well, so...
Plus, it´s harder to track: It´s easy to keep the limit in mind for a single turn or action, but much more annoying for every participant in a whole combat turn: "So, this Streetsam would get an Edge no for having high armor... No, wait, that one already got 2 Edge from his two Attacks right at the start of the round... Hmmm, which of the summoned 10 Spirits and 4 drones already got their 2 Edge...?"
PLUS, according to Banshee, that´s not how it was playtested.
So, with that being said:
It's two per Combat Round, and it's really quite clear when you read it in the book and not try to guess it from random vids on teh interwebs.
I honestly have no reason at all to doubt that the official rules are (and will stay) as Hobbes describes it. It´s just classic Catalyst ::)
Luckily, there´s houserules. My deepest condolences to missions players, though...
-
I´m not sure if everyone is understanding the scope of this. It´s quite a difference whether the 2 Edge Limit applies to every (Major) action, every player´s turn , or for the whole round .
Action VS Turn isn´t that much of a difference though, as it would almost only apply to fast characters with more than one attack per turn. It´s actally somewhat reasonable to put a cap on the whole turn IMO, given that probably even some Minor Actions might generate Edge in the right circumstances.
But Round VS Action: Oh boy. That´s a big difference, and strictly for the worse. There are so many ways to generate Edge, through gear, perks, beneficial circumstance and even through armor (instead of - you know - protecting against damage?!), and many of these can apply both in your own turn and during the turn of other combatants. Putting a cap on the whole round means that, especially in huge battles, you´ll reach the cap really quick. Two goons shoot at you while you are in cover, there you go. Or you go first and earn the 2 Edge through your own actions. After reaching that cap, all the gear and powers and other perks that might give you an Edge don´t matter any more. And armor and cover will, at best, help you deny Edge gain for the opposition. But they will probably have reached their limit as well, so...
Plus, it´s harder to track: It´s easy to keep the limit in mind for a single turn or action, but much more annoying for every participant in a whole combat turn: "So, this Streetsam would get an Edge no for having high armor... No, wait, that one already got 2 Edge from his two Attacks right at the start of the round... Hmmm, which of the summoned 10 Spirits and 4 drones already got their 2 Edge...?"
PLUS, according to Banshee, that´s not how it was playtested.
So, with that being said:
It's two per Combat Round, and it's really quite clear when you read it in the book and not try to guess it from random vids on teh interwebs.
I honestly have no reason at all to doubt that the official rules are (and will stay) as Hobbes describes it. It´s just classic Catalyst ::)
Luckily, there´s houserules. My deepest condolences to missions players, though...
Yeah it's the confusion that's really my point. If they play tested it one way and were happy then, that what it needs to be in the CRB, and I don't feel like that's clear or working as intended at the moment.
-
As for the usefulness of the Jack of All Trades players, I don't know whether that's really that big of a problem. Having real specialists on the team at least avoids stepping on other player's toes/areas of expertise.
You are assuming some level of player-team based level of cooperation in character building. That isn't always the case. For some tangible subset of the playerbase, Missions is their only real outlet for playing. For them, not only is cooperative character building not always the case, it is almost non-existent.
Combine that with the likely reduction to the number of skill points at chargen*, and there is a real possibility of "cookie cutter" characters with the exact same skill builds. Do note: I am not suggesting said characters will play the same, just pointing out mechanically they would be nearly - if not exactly - the same.
*Purely speculation on my part. Sixth World cuts the number of active skills down to roughly a quarter, so players should not be surprised to see the number of skill points at chargen cut as dramatically. I'm not sure it will be by roughly a quarter, but here is what that would look like:
E => 5, D => 6, C => 7/1, B =9/2>. A => 11/3
(The number after the slash are "bonus points" from what used to be Skill Group points. With all skill becoming Skill Groups, I have no idea how those might work. Maybe Specialization only points?)
...another advantage (in Missions particularly) is if there is another character with the same skill the two can engage in a teamwork test which in our group we have found to be extremely valuable.
For example, Leela has a Negotiation of 3 (with a fairly a decent Charisma). Normally she uses that as a backup or alternative to her Con skill when dealing with say gangers or mooks. When the group's face is negotiating payment she can assist adding as many dice as she gets hits (up to the other character's skill rating) and +1 to social limit. That benefits the entire team as it increases the chance of a good payday. She can assist the team's medic to help get an injured teammember up and going again. She assists with data searches, B&E, setting up tactics, and even acts as an interpreter (she knows several languages). This still makes her a very valuable member of the team even though she doesn't have any dice pools of 20+. Yeah she doesn't always get the limelight, unless it is to set explosives/disarm a bomb or do a recon work (she has a rather decent perception and sneaking pool), but I don't mind as she is frequently involved in the action and moving he story along in some way.
Technically, she is more a support instead of front line character, though that doesn't mean she can contribute when the lead or spells start flying (one of the reasons I'm disappointed to learn they dropped Suppression Fire in 6E as that is one of her favourite tactics...using a Yamaha Raiden loaded with EXEX handload). She also has a pretty good defence against most spells, particularly mental manipulations and illusions.
-
How does counterspelling work in 6th?
-
How does counterspelling work in 6th?
I don't think it's been revealed yet. QSR doesn't have rules for it, sticking just to spellcasting, and the magic blogpost doesn't bring it up either. I think we'll just have to wait for the CRB, but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say something like the defense roll to avoid being shot.
-
Just the fact that this is at issue is deeply distressing. How is there a even a question on something that is so core to 6e?
It's two per Combat Round, and it's really quite clear when you read it in the book and not try to guess it from random vids on teh interwebs.
+2 per set of actions/every 3 seconds sounds pretty reasonable.
Not sure what you mean by set of actions. But if it’s per round it’s got some big issues imo as too many will have no effect on slower initiatives.
Shooty McShooterson goes on 23 firing his pistol at Mr Tank twice. Me tank gains two edge because of the AV well twice. Me tank has a strength of over 9000 he gains 0 edge when swinging his axe.
Reverse McShooterson gains 2 edge shooting paper mache man due to his awesome gun. He can gain no more edge this round, his armor won’t help him there even against bad attacks, darkness, high wind nothing helps him at all. Tactics etc became pointless for him because he can no longer gain edge.
Actually I meant when each individual goes, not when a whole rotation of people go for the reasons Marcus listed out. I just worded it poorly.