Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-01-19/1240:07>
-
https://www.shadowrunsixthworld.com/wp-content/uploads/SR6-Core-Rulebook-Errata-Aug-2019.pdf So the errata for the 6e crb is out. Now yes it has errors itself but they rushed it for gencon. But the errata does give us a glimpse of some of the rules. I figure this is a good place to talk about it until the full book is out for us to see.
1 firing from cover takes a extra minor action so a major and minor. You can use edge to not use that minor. I’m not a fan of this for lower levels of cover at least. Staying in 1/4 cover isn’t something that should require an extra actions. On of my concerns is I felt the game would be nickel and diming you
of minor actions which creates a less dynamic fight.
2. Small issue, but they kept the attribute and skill enhancement table. You framing just don’t need to know the costs to increase from 0 to 8. 7 to 8 is useful even if it’s crazy easy math. But this table confuses players of mine who thought to go from 7 to 8 cost like 140 karma or something.
3. Movement power still multiplies/divided speed. How many editions have people been saying it’s broken and causes bizarre setting effects that are sort of ignored by the setting. A more moderate use of the power like it adding meters of movement would fit the setting better I think and be better balanced.
Edit 4. Falling damage doesn’t have a cap in the paragraph. Maybe it’s there a paragraph later or something. But I’d think once you hit terminal velocity it no longer increase. Anyone know roughly how many meters you have to fall for that to happen? And would 1/2 that make sense as a damage scale anyways. Like is it 500dv at that point which is silly because that’s like a Nuke.
Edit to add in link to file. No idea why I forgot to initially.
-
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+far+does+it+take+to+reach+terminal+velocity
The answer is about 450m
-
Hmm so for me the damage scales wrong though it probably works decently at the falling scales you normally bump into. Though maybe not. Falling 10 meters only does 5dv that’s around a 3 story fall which will likely kill you. So a bit low on one end, way to high on the other.
Falling damage in my experience is rare enough it’s not a big issue.
-
I have not seen the new falling damage table but fall damage is wrong in just about every system ever invented. This is for two reasons... First, it is rapidly lethal unless you are hitting a specific surface (water or a stunt pillow) and second of all, until you hit terminal velocity it scales in a way that makes non-mathematicians uncomfortable.
In theory, damage should be based on velocity which is just 9.8 * t (meters per second if we're ignoring wind resistance which you want to do to avoid really ugly math). The problem is nobody wants to worry about time. All they want to know is how far the thing fell... Here's where you get screwed and things get ugly for gaming... The distance you have traveled is an integral which works out to 4.9 * t^2 meters. But you wanted it in distance, right? So now you have to do something wonky... You have v(t) and you have d(t).... You want v(d) (no std jokes, please) which involved inverting your distance formula so you have t(d) which allows you to get v(d) and that looks like 9.8 * sqrt (d / 4.9)...
With a little rounding, that's saying v = sqrt (20 * d) (where d is in meters)... So your damage is dependent on a square root which is obnoxious. Another interesting question which is mathematically as obnoxious is how long does it take the victim to go splat (also read, can you really get that spell off before you hit the ground) and the answer to that is roughly sqrt(d / 5) seconds (again where d is in meters)... So it takes 10 seconds to fall about 500m (add in wind resistance and it is really closer to 12 seconds so add a 20% fudge factor if it makes you really happy). How long does that spell take to cast?
-
I don’t expect it to match reality but I kind of want it to not have absurd outcomes.
Basically 2 things I’d like. A quasi accurate chart of how far you fall in a combat turn. Obviously how you fall changed things and 2 believable damage.
For 1 something basic like first combat turn fall x meters, 2nd y, 3rd and continuing z a turn.
For 2. I’d probably make the damage variable to some degree. But it seems off that a 10 meter fall is walked off fairly easily by pcs. Trolls might be super hero landing them.
-
Bone lacing/density damage is changed from. Set DV to unarmed damage+. Makes sense in that it would be weird to do less damage from bone lacing but it exaggerates the issue with melee weapons having a set damage. Now much quicker glorified brass knucks do more damage than swords/katanas/combat axes. It was always absurd matching swords but now it quickly surpasses them.
-
Definitely some interesting tidbits in there. Looks like a chunk of the errata is clarification sentences and "oops that was 5th". I did notice that machine guns have a minimum strength requirement to use.
-
No edge when attacking from cover? I have nothing positive to say about that.
-
Athletics is now a combat skill (and used for Archery, and presumable also crossbow and thrown weapons). It also seem to be connected to some defensive actions (as they talk about Full Defense and Dodge etc).
Exotic Weapons used for Grenade Launchers (and presumable also other "heavy weapons" such as Missile Launchers, Rocket Launchers and Auto Cannons?)
Missile rating act as a positive dice pool modifier (so dice pool modifiers are not totally gone).
Close Combat is not only used for Melee weapons and Unarmed Combat, it is also used for Shields.
Cover comes in 4 ratings (I = 25%, II = 50%, III = 75%, IV = 100%). Attacks from Cover cost an minor action (in addition to the Major action). Attacks from Cover does not grant edge (when attacking). Cover grant a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice per level. Cover also grant +1 defensive rating per level. Attacks from Cover IV suffer a negative dice pool modifier of 2 dice.
Skills cost 5 Karma. Attributes cost 5 Karma
Trolls have Built Tough (2) [presumable +2 condition monitor boxes?]
Manipulation spells normally last Net Hits Minutes and affect one.half cubic meter nonliving material per Net Hit
Binding is gone
Alchemical focus act as a positive dice pool modifier to Enchanting skill tests
Aspected Magicians have both Astral Perception and Astral Projection
Grids are gone (at least game mechanic wise)
Technomancers can now use VR (cold-sim VR?) in addition to AR and hot-sim (hot-sim VR?)
Teamwork is still a Thing.
Physical damage is soaked by Body
Biofeedback damage is soaked by Willpower
Matrix Damage is soaked by Firewall
Spirits generate drain equal to Hits (not net hits) on it's defense test. Drain (no matter the source) is resisted by Tradition Attribute + Willpower. If final drain (no matter the source) after resist is higher than magic then drain deal physical damage
Sprites generate fade equal to Hits (not net hits) on it's defense test. Fade (no matter the source) is resisted by Willpower + Charisma. [does this also mean that if final fade (no matter the source) after resist is higher than resonance then fade deal physical damage?]
They still seem to make a distinction between Vehicles (that are not drones) and Drones
Minimum strength requirement is a game mechanic in SR6.
Medium Machine Gun have a strength requirement of 2+ with a gyromount [in SR5 it was 8 for MMG and 10 for HMG without gyro, due to lower metatype maximum strength values I think it will be 7 for MMG and 9 for HMG in SR6]
[Since strength does not affect attack rating nor damage value of melee weapons it is plausible that melee weapons will instead have a minimum strength requirement, perhaps 1 for knife, 3 for katana and 5 for claymore?]
Confirmed Edge actions:
- Shank
- Tactical Roll (for example can be used to avoid the Hit the Dirt penalty)
- Knockout Blow (Melee Attack). Cost 2 Edge.
- Trip
- Tumble
- Hog [Matrix] Reduce Data Processing by 2 and active program slots by 1 for attack rating rounds. Cost 2 Edge.
-
Well, that errata was a disappointment from my perspective. How unfortunate.
-
Well, that errata was a disappointment from my perspective. How unfortunate.
It is in no way the end of forthcoming errata for the 6we crb.
-
Well, that errata was a disappointment from my perspective. How unfortunate.
Well it certainly makes my choices easy. I am sorry it's disappointing Lormyr, I was also hoping some other things to be addressed.
-
This was expected. My question is if these changes will be implemented in the pdf release, which is what I'm waiting for.
Speaking of, is there any word on when it will be released?
-
It is in no way the end of forthcoming errata for the 6we crb.
So there are actually more than 9 pages of errata (including 6 omitted tables)?
Can CGL put the errata team on the editing side instead?
-
The 9 pages are the result of the efforts of the HotFix team. It is not the final errata.
-
Would you be at liberty to share what the goal of the Hotfix Team is in the errata process? I'm just wondering what end state the Hotfixes are supposed to achieve? Trying to set my expectations.
-
The HotFix was assembled to go through the material and fix the biggest or glaring errors which could be discovered within the very short window of time they were given prior to GenCon. They were to catch as many errors as possible of course, but they were never meant to be the end of the errata for the product.
The Errata Team will be given access to the book after official release and then keep working through it until no more errata would be needed.
As I am not the leader of this team I cannot tell you whether there will be a periodic errata release or huge batch or even a change at a time.
The Errata process does not stop at the HotFix, it’s just the beginning.
-
Hopefully the errata team get to grenades at some point.
-
I'd say we should promote the hot-fix errata team to proof reading books before they go to final printing ;-)
Well done guys! And really nice that the errata is out this early.
Got more bits to the SR6 puzzle now. I actually like how the whole picture is shaping up.
-
First of all: Nice to see there´s an active errata process right from the get-go. Thanks ;D
Now if there would have been proper proofreading in the first place, that would have been even nicer. But alas...
Some observations that astonished me (not necissarily in a bad way), both about the Errata and the Core rules that can be extrapolated from them:
Cover I like the fact that cover now still gives you bonus defense dice in the errata, but the "can´t gain Edge on your attack" penalty seems like a really bad idea. It just further devaluates the Edge mechanic by putting arbitrary shakles on Edge gain (But hey, at least the Edge is not falling victim to the communist 2-Edge-per-round-limit, amirite? ::)) So yeah, you might want to have a second look on that. What astonishes me more than the new rules itself is the scope of this item: I don´t know how the original version of the cover mechanic in the Core Rules work, but this doesn´t look like the typical "First-Aid" errata, but like a full-blown rules change.
Edge: Wow, there´s a lot of Edge uses hinted at all over the place! Not that this is a bad thing, but maybe another reason to overthink that 2-Edge-per-round limit? The Edge mechanic is supposed to be a selling point of SR6, stop neutering it by adding arbitrary restrictions to it! I´m rather having a system that´s a bit unrealistic but fun than a system that´s neither realistic nor fun. At least the errata team fixed the restriction on Edge uses per round. Good catch, I´ll gladly forgive you the typo on that ("one expenditure of Edge per round action") 8)
Beauty Corrections: The scope of the different errata items varies drastically; There are the usual suspects like missing tables, there are wording changes for better clarification, typos, and there are some items look more like actual rule changes than fixes. And then there are items that do look a bit... arbitrary? I mean stuff like - p. 70, New Spells, sentence 3: Change “After a week of study” to “After about a week of study, (see p. 131). So there´s a bit of leeway for the GM now, in case (s)he forgets who controls the game world? :P Is that really worth an errata item?
- p. 90, Weapon Specialist, skills: Change Close Combat 6 to Close Combat (Unarmed Combat) 5. Assuming that buying skills at chargen works remotely similar to 5E, isn´t that just a kind of modification that any player could do themselfes?
To put some constuctivism in the criticism: You people should consider some kind of priority annotation to distinguish different types of errata items: Actual rules changes / "fixes", missing stuff, clarification, typos and lastly, beauty modifications like the above. If this document gets longer (and I´m sure it will), it becomes more and more tedious to pick out the more important changes.
Athletics: So, Archery and Throwing is part of Athletics now, making it a kind of semi-combat skill? That´s... wild. Would have never guessed that. But it actually makes sense. Hell, I like it ;D
-
this doesn´t look like the typical "First-Aid" errata, but like a full-blown rules change.
It is NOT. They simply changed the phrasing and added the -2 penalty for Cover IV that wasn't present in this section, but WAS referred to elsewhere in the rules. All they did here was make things more clear.
As for "a week of study" to "about a week of study": p131 describes it depends on the hits you score: Can be 12, 6, 3, 1.5, etc. So it was changed to fit the actual details, it's not a simple cosmetic fix but resolving the clash between 2 contradicting sections.
Your post doesn't match reality. I'm disappointed.
-
I'd say we should promote the hot-fix errata team to proof reading books before they go to final printing ;-)
Well done guys! And really nice that the errata is out this early.
Got more bits to the SR6 puzzle now. I actually like how the whole picture is shaping up.
<3
-
It is in no way the end of forthcoming errata for the 6we crb.
Thanks for the heads up there SSD. Even so, this first batch was very disappointing to me. Other than the editing corrections, I feel like the wrong items to "fix" were focused on.
So there are actually more than 9 pages of errata (including 6 omitted tables)?
Can CGL put the errata team on the editing side instead?
So I am not a publisher, or editor, or developer, so take this impression with a grain of salt. It surely does seem like a lot to miss for print though, especially when they knew they would need errata at least three months before the books would be released.
Hopefully the errata team get to grenades at some point.
They already did bro, made considerably more deadly with that dodge table. -6 to avoid incoming (that's agility + athletics to gtfo) vs. the most damaging area of the grenade.
That deletion of that paragraph to Mystic Adept might have neutered them pretty terribly too. They were to good as was, but now they are in a very rough spot. I'll walk you guys through this since the book is out now.
Mages, Adepts, and Mystic Adepts start with the following magic rating: A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1.
Mages start with a number of spells equal to their magic rating, as determined by their priority selection above. This figure is not altered by increase by "points, karma, or adjustments". So 8 spells at most.
Adepts do the same thing with power points, so again, 4 at most. This is later contradicted under the power points section in the adept section, which says "whenever adept characters gain a point of magic they also gain a power point.". So which of those two things gets to be correct is still up in the air.
Mystic Adepts use their rating to buy both. 1 for 1 on power points, or 1 for 2 spells. So a priority B could have 2 power points and 2 spells for example. The removed sentence said they could buy power points up to their magic rating for 6 karma each during advancement. That potential made them too good imo (I would have made it 10 karma each at chargen only), but having a true split leaves them pretty well behind the curve and locked into the optimization choice of spend them all on power points because the only way you are getting more is initiating. Spells are easy at 5 karma a pop.
I'd say we should promote the hot-fix errata team to proof reading books before they go to final printing ;-)
Please. And pay them.
-
Many of the HotFix members should be on the Errata team.
And yes, while pay would be nice, we (the Errata team) do it for the love of the universe/game :)
-
Many of the HotFix members should be on the Errata team.
And yes, while pay would be nice, we (the Errata team) do it for the love of the universe/game :)
I dig it, but that still doesn't mean you shouldn't receive compensation for your time and effort.
-
Not directly a errata fix, but looking at the errata they mentioned grenade launcher and within this the damage of a fragrmentation grenade being 16p/12p/8p with 16p for Ground Zero, 12p for Close and 8p for Near.
Now looking at the boxset, Close is listed 0-3m and Near is 4-50m.
Do grenades have a different sizing for their blast zone and just happens to be using the same terms as weapons range (which would be kind of confusing if they are different things) or is it really doing 8p DV out to 50m distance?
-
Each kind of explosive lists what its actual cap to the Near range is.
-
Each kind of explosive lists what its actual cap to the Near range is.
Whew, thanks!
-
this doesn´t look like the typical "First-Aid" errata, but like a full-blown rules change.
It is NOT. They simply changed the phrasing and added the -2 penalty for Cover IV that wasn't present in this section, but WAS referred to elsewhere in the rules. All they did here was make things more clear.
As for "a week of study" to "about a week of study": p131 describes it depends on the hits you score: Can be 12, 6, 3, 1.5, etc. So it was changed to fit the actual details, it's not a simple cosmetic fix but resolving the clash between 2 contradicting sections.
Your post doesn't match reality. I'm disappointed.
Thanks for the clarification, makes more sense now. It´s hard to tell how fundamental (or "cosmetic", on the other side) an errata item is without seeing the book it´s based on. That´s why all this bleating on how "10 pages of Errata means that 3% of the book are wrong" kinda pisses me off :P
That being said: "You can´t get Edge for shooting out of cover" is definetely something that will go straight out of the window if I ever play 6th Edition. Jeez people. If you want this fancy new mechanic take off, stop gutting it ::)
-
So the fix for grenades was to make them even more brokenly overpowered.
Here’s how I’d fix them. 1/2 the damage at each distance. Roll scatter as normal. Also make it an opposed test remove that penalty to dodge nonsense, net hits on the attack test increase the damage. Any net hits on the defense test make you effectively one range category out from where the grenade actually landed. And if people want to blow minors still on drop prone etc let them. Dodge adds so many dice it almost negates standard attacks so the same can be true for grenades. Ta da grenades are actually useable in the game without shadowrun 6e just becoming the who throws the grenade first edition. Probably have to do the same for missiles etc.
-
So the fix for grenades was to make them even more brokenly overpowered.
I don't think they were fixed, or intended to be fixed. The CRB was missing the "dodge penalty chart" for the avoid incoming interrupt action, and I think this errata just "fixed" the fact the chart was missing. It was a good opportunity to actually fix how unbalanced grenades are, but it is likely either seen as a non-issue, or they weren't allowed.
As soon as Missions switches over I plan to make a grenade junky built to the fullest tilt and play it at as many different locations as possible to highlight how broken they are.
-
That being said: "You can´t get Edge for shooting out of cover" is definetely something that will go straight out of the window if I ever play 6th Edition. Jeez people. If you want this fancy new mechanic take off, stop gutting it ::)
Since you get a bonus to defense rating (as well as a positive dice pool modifier to avoid) probably mean you generate edge faster when opposition is trying to hit you...
I want to play test this before making up my mind on this...
-
So the fix for grenades was to make them even more brokenly overpowered.
I don't think they were fixed, or intended to be fixed. The CRB was missing the "dodge penalty chart" for the avoid incoming interrupt action, and I think this errata just "fixed" the fact the chart was missing. It was a good opportunity to actually fix how unbalanced grenades are, but it is likely either seen as a non-issue, or they weren't allowed.
As soon as Missions switches over I plan to make a grenade junky built to the fullest tilt and play it at as many different locations as possible to highlight how broken they are.
With this just being the HotFix and errata in full coming later after the con, it may be something they look into, or already have and it’s just in a different not yet released ReadMe.
-
Would anyone be able to comment on the plan for errata long term?
Is there a standing goal of incorporating the errata into at least the digital document and republishing to customers? Even if that might take a while to finalize or accomplish?
It is what it is, just looking to set my expectations here too. Just knowing a yes/no/unable to comment would be helpful.
-
There is nothing any of us can say about Catalyst plans. All we can do is hypothesise. In the past they did update the SR5 CRB PDF. That is all we know.
-
I think most of the people who can answer questions are currently at Gen Con, and so forum participation could be spotty for the next couple days. It will be for me at least.
-
At the risk of making a netiquette faux pas, would it be acceptable to post my observations on the Errata doc in the Errata forum? I don't want to make anyone feel called out or anything, I'm sure the time crunch had an impact on things. There's some wording choices on some passages I'd love to suggest changes to for better clarity though. Just trying to help suggest improvements. :D
-
At the risk of making a netiquette faux pas, would it be acceptable to post my observations on the Errata doc in the Errata forum? I don't want to make anyone feel called out or anything, I'm sure the time crunch had an impact on things. There's some wording choices on some passages I'd love to suggest changes to for better clarity though. Just trying to help suggest improvements. :D
Since you are not part of the Errata team, I'd say no.
-
My bad. Didn't realize it wasn't for general public use. I'll stop trying to help.
-
My bad. Didn't realize it wasn't for general public use. I'll stop trying to help.
Don't stop trying, I'm just pointing out that the subsection is set up for them to track stuff.
-
Sorry again, maybe I'm not being clear enough.
I have some suggested changes to the wording a couple of the entries in the Errata document to aid in the clarification the sentences are attempting to provide. I'd like to post these suggestions somewhere for consideration (thus items to be tracked for changes). The Errata subsection made sense to me as a place for that, but if that's not the right spot, where should I post it?
-
Hallo!
To answer your most recent question, give me some time to work that out, but I definitely want a place for the community to post there thoughts on Errata without cluttering up community repositories.
To answer the 'thought process' question:
The purpose of Hot Fix was to find outright conflicts and omissions and correct them. I'm sure we missed a few things.
What we were NOT working towards for HF was fine tuning balance or making a case for why something should change.
If the rule was there and was mechanically workable, then it wasn't for the HF team to 'fix'.
Part of that has to do with the time available to us, part of that is giving the game time to 'land' before folks start demanding changes.
Of all the gripes people have, some of them are fully going to fall into the realm of 'getoffmylawnism' and there will be growing pains as we acclimatize. Once we have, we may very well discover that something we thought we'd hate or something g we thought was going to be absolutely broken turns out just fine... preferable, even.
Some will not... and once we're certain it's not working, we can approach it as a potential errata item.
In addition to making sure the errata program is working for all of us, I want to increase visibility on the how and why.
BUT! I've been neck deep in it for a minute and once Gen Con is done, I need to take a break and recharge, so it'll be a couple of weeks before I dive headfirst into it with the team, so give us some time.
Talk out your issues in the general and rules forums. Try things. Test them. Break them. We'll address everything that we can and make 6W the best game it can be.
-
Fair enough. Rest well.
-
On cover not providing Edge, couldn't you take a minor action to leave cover, Major action to attack, then minor action to resume cover?
-
On cover not providing Edge, couldn't you take a minor action to leave cover, Major action to attack, then minor action to resume cover?
Depends on how RAW your GM is I'd guess, If you moved out of cover, then shot, you'd no longer have any move actions left to get back to cover so you could then take the minor action get in cover. I suspect reasonable GMs would say a step out of cover, doesn't require a move action to get back into it.
-
On cover not providing Edge, couldn't you take a minor action to leave cover, Major action to attack, then minor action to resume cover?
I'd probably treat that as a 'Stand Up' Minor Action, so yeah it seems valid to me. That does mean you're spending 2 Minors on getting that Edge, which sounds like a fair tactical choice.
Edit: Forgot attacking from Cover is already a Minor Action. Then just paying 1 Minor extra to avoid the penalty is a bit tricky balance-wise.
-
I am trying to figure out the logic behind this decision....Why would you not gain edge from making a sound tactical move, but by making a less sound tactical move, you can get edge.
The previous example, which I agree sounds valid with RAW, makes no sense from a thematic standpoint. I stand up from cover, exposing myself completely, or step away from cover, exposing myself completely. I then shoot. I then take cover again....why would that allow edge over me maintaining cover, lining up a shot and potentially using cover (depending on type of cover, say a turned over metal table) to help line up the shot....would not have any consideration to get any edge....
-
You still get the Edge for defending. Which is easier since both your DR and your dicepool get buffed. However, you're in a position where you can't weave exactly the right way to get a tactical Edge when attacking.
Makes a lot of sense to me to put a restriction like this on it, really.
-
I am trying to figure out the logic behind this decision....Why would you not gain edge from making a sound tactical move, but by making a less sound tactical move, you can get edge.
The previous example, which I agree sounds valid with RAW, makes no sense from a thematic standpoint. I stand up from cover, exposing myself completely, or step away from cover, exposing myself completely. I then shoot. I then take cover again....why would that allow edge over me maintaining cover, lining up a shot and potentially using cover (depending on type of cover, say a turned over metal table) to help line up the shot....would not have any consideration to get any edge....
I agree the core rule that you can’t gain edge on attacks when in cover is bad. If it was just level 4 cover I’d get it because there you are effectively firing blind. But it is the rule so people will come
up with ways around it.
-
"Can't gain/use edge while...." are new forms of penalties that take the place of removing some number of dice. They add more granularity to the AR/DR comparison and to the binary question of "who has advantage".
See the offhand firing penalty as another example of this mechanic in use.
-
"Can't gain/use edge while...." are new forms of penalties that take the place of removing some number of dice. They add more granularity to the AR/DR comparison and to the binary question of "who has advantage".
See the offhand firing penalty as another example of this mechanic in use.
That’s fine as a general mechanic. It just make sure no damn sense for cover.
-
You still get the Edge for defending. Which is easier since both your DR and your dicepool get buffed. However, you're in a position where you can't weave exactly the right way to get a tactical Edge when attacking.
Makes a lot of sense to me to put a restriction like this on it, really.
Just don't understand how stand + shoot + cover gives Edge allows AR > Defense Edge Rewarding, but Cover + Shoot does not....Seems far more tactically unsound and less 'advantageous' or less of having an 'edge over the opponent' to expose yourself completely from cover to shoot (as opposed to utilizing the cover to shoot), then returning yourself to cover....Just seems very ham fisted and like a solution creating a problem, rather than solving one.
-
You can get Edge with the extra DR. Don't see the problem myself, makes perfect sense that you don't get all those bonuses without a price.
-
Opinion:
It's thematic.
Edge isn't a literal thing, right?
Part of the Edge Mechanic is the Rule of Cool. So being pinned down and stalled while you engage doesn't gain edge. Pushing forward and engaging dynamically is exciting, and is what grants Edge.
Edge is about dynamic storytelling.
So it may not make sense 'mechanically' but it does thematically.
-
It's nonsensical is what it is. Also the Cover 4 shooting penalty makes little sense as when you're in cover you specifically have to use a minor action to move out of cover and shoot.
-
You're not actually moving out of Cover, you're still maintaining your cover (so no need to use another Take Cover action), and if you're 100% covered by it you're basically pointing your gun out and firing. If you don't want it, there's ways to avoid it with guncams and such.
If you want to houserule otherwise, feel free. But I don't see why anyone would insist this makes no sense, when it makes all the sense.
-
It literally says "Get clear enough to take a shot" but by all means pretend it makes sense.
-
Yes. So you're still maintaining being in cover.
-
As an aside the cover rules since they go up to
Full cover sound more like the results for concealment. I’m 100% behind a security door that bounces bullets off it and all I get is +4 dodge dice and a bit more defense value. Hiding behind a bush aka concealment I get it, solid bullet stopping cover not so much.
-
You're not actually moving out of Cover, you're still maintaining your cover (so no need to use another Take Cover action), and if you're 100% covered by it you're basically pointing your gun out and firing. If you don't want it, there's ways to avoid it with guncams and such.
If you want to houserule otherwise, feel free. But I don't see why anyone would insist this makes no sense, when it makes all the sense.
At 100% cover it makes sense. But the errata released rule does not specify the loss of edge is only for level 4 cover. So even 25% cover you don’t get an edge. That makes no damn sense.
-
But the errata released rule does not specify the loss of edge is only for level 4 cover. So even 25% cover you don’t get an edge. That makes no damn sense.
Strongly agree. I don’t see why standing in the open gives you more of an advantage over your opponents than standing behind a knee-high barrier. Blind fire, I can see. But standing in cover should give you lowercase-e edge, not lose it.
I’m no stickler for simulationist mechanics over elegant approximations. But you still need some coherence and some verisimilitude.
-
But the errata released rule does not specify the loss of edge is only for level 4 cover. So even 25% cover you don’t get an edge. That makes no damn sense.
Strongly agree. I don’t see why standing in the open gives you more of an advantage over your opponents than standing behind a knee-high barrier. Blind fire, I can see. But standing in cover should give you lowercase-e edge, not lose it.
I’m no stickler for simulationist mechanics over elegant approximations. But you still need some coherence and some verisimilitude.
Yeah, for Cover 4, I totally get it. For anything else it really seems thematically irrational.
In regards to a prior comment suggesting it's not 'cool' to fire from cover, I disagree. The idea of not being a green noob and actually using cover instead of walking out in the open with both pistols blazing seems very cool from a, "Hey, this 'Runner isn't a total drekhead, no wonder he is still alive to run the shadows". Being able to pop up quickly with a minor attack from cover action, quickly assess your targets, and then taking a shot, seems the definition of cool, vs the guy who ends up a puddle of blood on the ground for 'thematics'....which given most Shadowrunners being a 'survive to fight another day' type, save combat monsters or people with traditions/traits that prevent them from not going full berserk/stupid, makes way more sense for them to gain advantage via fighting intelligently.
-
You gain advantage by having higher DR so better odds at defensive edge and having one of the only dicepool modifiers in the system.
-
If you ignore all the other dicepool modifiers, then yes.
-
Double post because I figured out the Cover 4 thing, you take the -2 so they can charge you two edge to shoot without penalty. Another punishment for playing defensively I can only assume.
-
In real life you use cover to gain a defensive advantage over your opposition and you use movement in order to flank your opposition to gain an offensive advantage.
But standing in cover should give you lowercase-e edge
Odds are already higher that you will get rewarded a tactical advantage for being in cover when people shoot at you compared to if you had been out in the open.
...but offensively? covering behind something while sticking out your weapon to shoot back is obviously not as efficient as if you get to maintain a proper firing stance or if you use movement to flank your opponent.
verisimilitude.
Whats up with this word anyway. Until 2 weeks ago or so I never seen it. Not even once in my entire life. Now it pop up in every other forum post. WTF :-)
you take the -2 so they can...
You can reduce the modifier by using a periscope.
In SR5 you had a -6 dice penalty while firing at targets if you were 100% behind cover.
In SR6 you take a -2 dice penalty if you fire while having the status effect Cover IV.
If anything I'd say you are getting less punished for using Cover in SR6 ;-)
-
verisimilitude.
Whats up with this word anyway. Until 2 weeks ago or so I never seen it. Not even once in my entire life. Now it pop up in every other forum post. WTF :-)
Hah!
I've always loved it, both as a word (it's so fun to say) and as a concept. I've long regarded it as something of a holy grail in TTRPG games I run. Actually being realistic, with hugely complex simulatinist rules, isn't for me. But feeling real, with rules that are elegant to navigate but still capture that nebulous essence of reality? That's the magic I want to create for my players.
-
In SR5 you had a -6 dice penalty while firing at targets if you were 100% behind cover.
In SR6 you take a -2 dice penalty if you fire while having the status effect Cover IV.
You're talking about the blind fire penalty which is a penalty for not looking where you shoot, nothing preventing you from leaning out of cover in 5e, rather than a penalty for being in cover.
Having the periscope exist and negate an entire edge move is predictable and smacks of internal inconsistencies, the usual trash.
Additionally, I just found this one. Mnemonic Enhancers still add their rating to your knowledge skill pools proving once again CGL has no idea what they added or took out of this dumpster fire.
-
...but offensively? covering behind something while sticking out your weapon to shoot back is obviously not as efficient as if you get to maintain a proper firing stance or if you use movement to flank your opponent.
That's a evaluation that doesn't remotely mesh with reality. Something to brace with, fire from is far more steady and efficient than firing on the move. Stopping to take up a perfect firing stance in the open..well, if thats the new 'rule of cool'..then apparently being dead, really quick is the new cool.
-
I am trying to figure out the logic behind this decision....Why would you not gain edge from making a sound tactical move, but by making a less sound tactical move, you can get edge.
So, here is a direct quote from the CRB about what edge represents in 6e:
"This critical statistic measures the undefinable, putting it on tricky ground right at the outset. It is that combination of guts, risk, and heedless ignorance of danger and good sense that lets shadowrunners survive where others do not.".
Now before I go further, let me be clear I am not a fan of the new system. That said, I think Jayde Moon hit the nail on the head. It doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but it was not meant too. It was intended to let the system work the way they wanted it to.
The attribute is very poorly defined, which allows a lot (entirely too much imo) room for discrepancy between perspective, so that it can do whatever the table in question wants it to while infuriating those of us that would just appreciate some sensible consistency.
As defined, tactical acumen has very little to do with the attribute, even while it is a core element of how you actually wield the attribute mechanically.
-
This is purely opinion:
SR has always been at least wading in the "movie logic" pool. 6we happens to swim in it.
But we're still not at the deep end, as you still do things like track ammo rather than run out when you glitch, and so on.
-
You're talking about the blind fire penalty which is a penalty for not looking where you shoot, nothing preventing you from leaning out of cover in 5e, rather than a penalty for being in cover.
If you are 100% behind cover then you are per definition not leaning out over the cover ;)
If you are 100% behind cover in SR5 when firing you take the blind fire situational modifier of -6 dice. Unless your weapon is equipped with a camera (scopes and smartguns come with a built in camera) in which case you instead take the "attacker firing from cover using imaging device" situational modifier of -3 dice. Or you use a periscope in which case the modifier is down to -2 dice (or even -1 dice if you are wireless connected to it).
If you are 100% behind cover in SR6 (this would be the status effect Cover IV) when firing you take a negative dice pool modifier of 2 dice. Unless you are using a smartgun system (that comes with a camera) or a periscope in which case you don't take a negative dice pool modifier at all.
If you are say... only 60% behind cover in SR5 (because you are leaning out to take the shot or whatever) then you don't take a negative dice pool modifier to shoot at all. The defensive effect is that you gain a positive dice pool modifier of 4 dice to your defense test.
In SR6 this would be the status effect called Cover III in which you also don't take a negative dice pool modifier to shoot. The defensive effect is that you gain a positive dice pool modifier of 3 dice to your defense test and a +3 bonus to your DR.
-
In SR6 this would be the status effect called Cover III in which you also don't take a negative dice pool modifier to shoot. The defensive effect is that you gain a positive dice pool modifier of 3 dice to your defense test and a +3 bonus to your DR.
Unless they use an imaging scope against you, then your DR is irrelevant.
-
Your DR is still there to prevent the shooter to gain edge. This is not something his scope can affect at all....
That is not really an issue. The two main offenders here are that:
1. Vision magnification and imaging scope are not aligned.
2. Imaging Scope may be used at Close and Near range.
Fix that and imaging scopes will be fine.
-
The bottom line is that the absolute last thing the armor situation needed was to be further diminished by a resource that is trivial to acquire.
-
That is not really an issue. The two main offenders here are that:
1. Vision magnification and imaging scope are not aligned.
2. Imaging Scope may be used at Close and Near range.
Fix that and imaging scopes will be fine.
Surely you are not looking for realism in 6th?
We have been told repeatedly that Shadowrun has never been about realism, and that it has no place here. [/sarcasm]
The bottom line is that the absolute last thing the armor situation needed was to be further diminished by a resource that is trivial to acquire.
Truth
-
That is not really an issue. The two main offenders here are that:
1. Vision magnification and imaging scope are not aligned.
2. Imaging Scope may be used at Close and Near range.
Fix that and imaging scopes will be fine.
Surely you are not looking for realism in 6th?
We have been told repeatedly that Shadowrun has never been about realism, and that it has no place here. [/sarcasm]
The bottom line is that the absolute last thing the armor situation needed was to be further diminished by a resource that is trivial to acquire.
Truth
The worlds got magic hence it’s not realistic comments were legion. Which is why people switched to using verisimilitude to avoid that stuff.
Given that armor is ratings like 1-4 I doubt it would change much to give it as soak. You take 2 instead of 3 isn’t a huge change.
-
The bottom line is that the absolute last thing the armor situation needed was to be further diminished by a resource that is trivial to acquire.
Everything comes with a price.
In this case you are basically trading a potential edge to remove a Minor Action for your opponent.
In most situations I would say that this is a pretty Good trade-off ;-)
Also,
1. If you are within his optimal range category then odds are you would not get a tactical advantage while being hit anyway (at this range the attacker often get a base AR of 10-12 or so, not counting bonuses from smartgun systems or vision magnifications).
2. You might secure your two edge from other sources, anyway
Personally I like the paper - rock - scissors tactical element that the new edge mechanic brings to the table and I hope that they will expand on this moving forward. Also like that you get to reap the reward of your tactical play by frequently executing small 'hero' actions. Can't wait to see how it plays out for real.
Surely you are not looking for realism in 6th?
I really don't want Shadowrun to be a real life simulator.
I am perfectly fine with Hollywood Realism.
Rule of Cool always goes before realism. Every. Single. Time.
If SR6 let me tell a good story that the players enjoy then I would say the edition is a success.
So far it seem very promising.
Sure the book have a few copy pasta mistakes and a few corner cases that they didn't think about, but the framework is solid and it seems to work and it seem to solve many of the issues that many of us saw in the older editions.
In this case it just make perfect sense that Vision Magnification have a bonus when you take shots at Medium, Far and Extreme range (and that it does not add anything Close or Near distance). It also make perfect sense that Imaging Scope comes pre-installed with the Vision Magnification enhancement which mean it should inherit the exact same benefit (and limitations).
This is probably just a thing they accidentally missed in the conversion and I am confident they are discussing it internally and that they will fix it in an upcoming errata.
-
Can you please stop looking at things in vacuum
I do not believe I am, nor do I appreciate that assumption. I'll explain further below.
Everything comes with a price.
In this case you are basically trading a potential edge to remove a Minor Action for your opponent.
In most situations I would say that this is a pretty Good trade-off ;-)
Most everything, sure. But those prices vary significantly. Lets leave your vacuum for a moment, and consider the following scenarios.
1). Human with body 3, armor jacket vs. sniper.
In this scenario, I agree with you 100%. His body and armor wasn't going to help him anyhow, the scope is irrelevant. Forcing the attacker to spend his minor action aiming is, by itself, a better trade than the victim gaining an edge. That minor action cost may or may not be worth it, depending on the other scenarios in the combat, though. Did he lose a second attack to aim? Did he need those additional actions to dodge or take cover? Lot of variables, but the likely outcome is as you assessed.
2). Big troll body 10, titanium bone lacing, 2 cyberlimbs, full body armor with helmet, final DR 23 vs. sniper.
In this scenario, I fully disagree with you on all points. The troll spent significant resources in essence and money to ensure he would generate edge when attacked. Having that trumped by a chump change trinket and a minor action is not only unbalanced, it's insulting. Again, the cost of that minor action is subjective based on additional circumstances present, but it is almost certainly in favor of the sniper. Not really because of the single point of edge, but because the troll spent his character generation resources on something that did nothing for him, while you sniper spent his on other things that function for him appropriately.
While you look at it as edge vs. minor action, I look at is as 3.5 points of essence and 100,000 nuyen vs. chump change and a minor action.
All of these figures are still beside the point of the elements you cannot mathematically measure, such as uninspired, unfun, unbalanced, nonsensical, ect.
1. If you are within his optimal range category then odds are you would not get a tactical advantage while being hit anyway (at this range the attacker often get a base AR of 10-12 or so, not counting bonuses from smartgun systems or vision magnifications).
Odds based on what? Literally all it takes to deny the vast majority of attackers (with AR 14 being near top end before add ons) edge gain on attack is a max body dwarf, ork, or troll in an armored jacket. That is before even trying.
2. You might secure your two edge from other sources, anyway
Sure, you're not wrong there. But that hardly excuses the armor AR/DR system from needing to function well because you can get it from other parts of the rules.
-
I am perfectly fine with Hollywood Realism.
Oh hell. Really?!??
Then you are good with dry wall and veneered 1/4" plywood being bulletproof, and thermographic vision working through walls.... Ugh.
-
Remember it's one minor action one turn. So long as you keep attacking you don't need to take aim again.
-
1. If you are within his optimal range category then odds are you would not get a tactical advantage while being hit anyway (at this range the attacker often get a base AR of 10-12 or so, not counting bonuses from smartgun systems or vision magnifications).
Odds based on what? Literally all it takes to deny the vast majority of attackers (with AR 14 being near top end before add ons) edge gain on attack is a max body dwarf, ork, or troll in an armored jacket. That is before even trying.
I am not talking about denying the attacker from gaining edge.
With AR 14 (your numbers) the defender would need DR 18+ to qualify for edge.
A max body dwarf with an armor jacket (your scenario) only have DR 11.
Even with Cover IV the dwarf only get up to DV 15, which is still not enough to gain an edge.
Oh hell. Really?!??
Yes, really.
It make for a far more cooler scene if your target is being being thrown backwards through the window on the 19th floor when you shoot him point blank with your shotgun (Hollywood Realism) than if he just fall to the floor like a sack of potatoes (Real Life).
It is far more cooler if the augmented troll can punch through brick walls (Hollywood Realism) than if he would just break every bone in his fist (Real Life)
Or when your rigger pulls something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU9Ad-8kMuM&t=96 or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EalGgwgi1iM&t=16
Remember it's one minor action one turn. So long as you keep attacking you don't need to take aim again.
What gave you that idea?
I am pretty sure that if you take a few Take Aim actions then the positive dice pool bonus will not carry over to all your attack actions until end of the whole combat scene.
-
Remember it's one minor action one turn. So long as you keep attacking you don't need to take aim again.
What gave you that idea?
I am pretty sure that if you take a few Take Aim actions then the positive dice pool bonus will not carry over to all your attack actions until end of the whole combat scene.
Yeah, the way it's written, you can keep using Take Aim each round and the bonus only increases if you don't use it. So if you do three rounds with Take Aim and no Attack, then you'll get to Attack with an +3 bonus. However, if you use the bonus, you're back to zero and need to Take Aim again to start over. And if you skip a round and don't use a Take Aim or Attack action, the bonus goes away too.
-
I am not talking about denying the attacker from gaining edge.
Fair enough, other way around then. It is much easier to build a character with a high DR than AR, for the simple fact that there are many more options that add to DR than AR. You can basically get about weapon range AR +6 (laser sight, smartgun, and apds) for an AR focused character, while a DR focused one will be body + armor rating + anywhere from +10 (bone lacing, 2 cyber limbs, dermal plating) to +16 (increase body, mystic armor, armor spell, combat sense spell) for a decked out mystic adept. Neither of those lists are comprehensive, but it highlights the mathematical progression in which DR wins.
My point is thus:
1). DR stacks higher than AR. Stacking DR is also significantly more costly than stacking AR. The former takes some combination of essence, karma, power points, spell slots, or a ton of nuyen. The later costs a bee's dick of nuyen and one minor action.
2). Because of the resource difference, letting the bee's dick investment nullify the significant, limited resource investment is absurd for game balance, and more than a little insulting to the person who invested those limited resources.
Now, will this matter to many characters? Hell if I know, I don't presume to know how the "average" gamer plays. What I do know is that the imaging scope being able to deny edge in the first place shouldn't even be an option.
-
Did you actually need further proof they just want all characters to walk around in bikinis?
I mean it's been clear that armor useless sense like a week after announcement? How is this a surprise?
Honestly Lor, just make a character that wears a bikini or mankini or whatever ever you like, and packs around a bag of grenades and own everything in 6e.
It's not complicated.
-
Honestly Lor, just make a character that wears a bikini or mankini or whatever ever you like, and packs around a bag of grenades and own everything in 6e.
It's not complicated.
Xenon triggered me with that vacuum comment, I have to sink my teeth now.
This is the thing. Anyone can have an opinion about the system. Like or dislike, and why, it's all totally valid. I've got nothing to say to someone stating "my personal preference is".
When they start arguing with the math is what grates me, though. You can't say that "odds are you won't get defensive edge when being attacked in optimal range anyways" as fact or excuse for an unbalanced, badly designed decision. Sometimes that statement is true, sure, but there are builds where that statement cannot be mathematically possible because DR scales much higher than AR on extreme builds.
-
Xenon triggered me with that vacuum comment
(I removed that part from my post while you were typing your reply, sorry you had to see it... it came out wrong)
I agree that Imaging Scope should have another effect.
The effect it have right now doesn't really benefit sniper rifles anyway (except maybe if the target went great length to super boost their DV, but in that case the target should probably have a chance to gain an edge from that anyway).
There are two situations where an Imaging device make a really big difference with the effect and with its current limitations.
1. Using unwieldy long weapons (such as sniper rifles, machine guns, auto cannons and to some extent also assault rifles) at 0-3 meters normally almost automatically grant edge to the defender. But for some reason you are allowed to take aim with an imaging device at melee range and by doing this you deny the defender from gaining edge while you use your unwieldy long arm against them. This needs to change no matter. Should not be possible to gain any advantage at all by using an imaging scope at close or medium range.
2. Where the effect of Imaging Scope have a real impact right now is at Extreme range with weapons that have really low AR at this range category (such as; AK-97, Ares Alpha, Cold M23, FN-HAR, Yamaha Raiden, and Ingram Valiant - none of which you normally associate with scopes and extreme range). Instead of barely being useful to attack with at extreme range and where the defender almost always would gain an edge if you did you now prevent the defender from gaining edge. Even if you only have an AR of 1. I don't think this is intended.
If we get to remake the effect of an imaging scope then maybe something like this could be used:
Extreme: At this range category you cannot take an Attack Action unless you benefit from an imaging scope (or similar magnification effect).
Imaging Scope: The classic top-mounted scope that includes a micro camera and vision magnification, along with a Capacity of 3 for additional vision enhancements (p. 275). Attachment or removal takes only a Minor Action. The imaging scope allows attacks to be taken at the Extreme range and Attack Ratings for Medium, Far, and Extreme ranges are increased by 2, assuming the attack being used has a non-zero Attack Rating in those categories. The Take Aim Minor Action must be used in order to gain the benefits of an imaging scope, though the dice pool bonus from that action is not gained for the first action of use.
Wireless bonus: The scope’s “line of sight” can be shared, allowing you to share what your scope sees with your team (and yourself if you’re using it to look around a corner).
-
(I removed that part from my post while you were typing your reply, sorry you had to see it... it came out wrong)
Don't be sorry. The source of all strength is forged through conflict, so I welcome your criticism as an opportunity to harden my resolve or be proven wrong and learn something.
I pretty much agree with most of what else you said.
-
Imaging Scope: The classic top-mounted scope that includes a micro camera and vision magnification, along with a Capacity of 3 for additional vision enhancements (p. 275). Attachment or removal takes only a Minor Action. The imaging scope allows attacks to be taken at the Extreme range and Attack Ratings for Medium, Far, and Extreme ranges are increased by 2, assuming the attack being used has a non-zero Attack Rating in those categories. The Take Aim Minor Action must be used in order to gain the benefits of an imaging scope, though the dice pool bonus from that action is not gained for the first action of use.
Wireless bonus: The scope’s “line of sight” can be shared, allowing you to share what your scope sees with your team (and yourself if you’re using it to look around a corner).
I like the direction you're going, but I would amend it to say you get -3/-1/+2/+2/+2 to your AR, assuming the weapon can use the range increment. That way you get a bonus to AR in the ranges where scopes matter, and are put at a disadvantage up close.
-
Sniper rifles only have between AR 1-3 or so at Close range (depending on model). You are already put at disadvantage up close. Not sure what another -3 to that would accomplish besides complicate things as AR would drop to zero and you would suddenly be unable to fire at all (which would feel strange). With AR ~2 you only need DR 6 to gain an edge as defender (body 3 and a jacket give you DR 7).
And on longer ranges they don't really need a bonus to AR (they have base AR between 11 and 14 on Far and Extreme ranges as is), I just tossed it in there for clarity because that is the bonus you get anyway from the Visual Magnification enhancement that is included into the imaging scope....
The Visual Magnification enhancement = Attack Ratings for Medium, Far, and Extreme ranges are increased by 2, assuming the attack being used has a non-zero Attack Rating in those categories and that you use a take aim action where the first action don't give you a positive dice pool modifier. It also allow you to take shots at extreme range to begin with.
The built-in Micro camera = The scope’s “line of sight” can be shared, allowing you to share what your scope sees with your team (and yourself if you’re using it to look around a corner).
Imaging scope specific bonus = No bonus at all. It will basically just become an imaging device. You might as well have visual magnification in your goggles or cybereyes. It is just an alternative source that give you visual magnification (and the capacity for some additional visual enhancements).
-
I think the negative modifier at close and near ranges would be less of an issue with assault rifles or SMGs.
And to be fair, you shouldn't be able to accurately fire a long rifle point blank while looking through a scope. A button/zipper could fill your whole view, and the second they move you would lose sight of them.
-
But if you are using a SMG with an imaging scope then suddenly your first take aim action at close and near distance will no longer give you a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice. So you see, there is already a 'cost' for using an imaging scope at close or near range (and there would be no benefit at all of using one at this range).
Even on 50-250 meter range (which is their max range category for a SMG, but also a range category where using an imaging scope actually would make sense in some situations) you would still trade a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice on your first take aim action for a +2 AR increase (increasing their base AR from 6-8 depending on model to 8-10 at this range category - which might or might not be worth it, but totally 'fine' if you ask me).
You would get the exact same behavior by using a vision magnification visual enhancement in your cybereyes. The imaging scope on its own is just a cheap way alternative source to gain access to the visual enhancement. It doesn't really 'add' anything on its own.
What I am really proposing is that imaging scope no longer 'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action' and instead do 'nothing' (a nerf). But also that you cannot take a shot at extreme range without having access to visual magnification (which is a 'buff' for the visual magnification effect I guess you might say, but you can also gain this effect from many different sources, one is by using an imaging scope, another is by wearing goggles and a third is by having cybereyes....)
At the very least they should consider changing the:
'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action'
to:
'deny edge gain from DR at medium, far or extreme range on a take aim action'
(and I think this is where it will end up in the errata).
-
New standard issue of all corpsec in 2080 8)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/68ee47c1-0705-4db7-8628-caf49537b7bd/d700qpn-028065dd-e792-48fd-a926-0f3855cdcda5.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzY4ZWU0N2MxLTA3MDUtNGRiNy04NjI4LWNhZjQ5NTM3YjdiZFwvZDcwMHFwbi0wMjgwNjVkZC1lNzkyLTQ4ZmQtYTkyNi0wZjM4NTVjZGNkYTUucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.qHlPj3O1jN0k6BqOjaFUUr5-HDFavkNC4lAu8LhNvRk)
-
But if you are using a SMG with an imaging scope then suddenly your first take aim action at close and near distance will no longer give you a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice. So you see, there is already a 'cost' for using an imaging scope at close or near range (and there would be no benefit at all of using one at this range).
Even on 50-250 meter range (which is their max range category for a SMG, but also a range category where using an imaging scope actually would make sense in some situations) you would still trade a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice on your first take aim action for a +2 AR increase (increasing their base AR from 6-8 depending on model to 8-10 at this range category - which might or might not be worth it, but totally 'fine' if you ask me).
You would get the exact same behavior by using a vision magnification visual enhancement in your cybereyes. The imaging scope on its own is just a cheap way alternative source to gain access to the visual enhancement. It doesn't really 'add' anything on its own.
What I am really proposing is that imaging scope no longer 'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action' and instead do 'nothing' (a nerf). But also that you cannot take a shot at extreme range without having access to visual magnification (which is a 'buff' for the visual magnification effect I guess you might say, but you can also gain this effect from many different sources, one is by using an imaging scope, another is by wearing goggles and a third is by having cybereyes....)
At the very least they should consider changing the:
'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action'
to:
'deny edge gain from DR at medium, far or extreme range on a take aim action'
(and I think this is where it will end up in the errata).
(Partial) Cross-post from another Thread (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29783.15):
Since there is no page reference from the Imaging Scope to Vision magnification despite being part of the description, it´s probably yet another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
The (additional?) effect of the Scope (denying Edge gain because of DR) simply doesn´t fit the purpose. I highly suspect that it was originally conceived under the premise that Sniper Rifles would have vastly lower Attack ratings on extreme ranges. They don´t, so now , this effect is only usefull for snipers when "sniping" from 3 Meters afar, when shooting multiple bullets, or when the target is extremely well armored. Apart from maybe the last one, none of these scenarios match up with the intended use of an imaging Scope. Quite the opposite, actually.
So why not throw that whole kibosh (along with APDS Ammo, because holy shit what were they thinking?!) in the errata/houserule machine and make something out of it that at least remotely resembles the actual purpose of these items?
A humble suggestion:
- Vision Magnification: When used with the Take Aim Action, increase the AP on Medium, Long and Extreme Ranges by 2 in addition to any other effects of the Take Aim Action.
- Imaging Scope: The same as Vision Magnification, plus the wireless effect (sharing feeds with team members)
- APDS Ammo: No reduction of the Damage Code, no change to AR. New Effect: Your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating. (So basically, the previous effect of the Imaging Scope. This fits better, because it will usually trigger when the Defense Rating is very high because of Cover and Armor)
-
- APDS Ammo: No reduction of the Damage Code, no change to AR. New Effect: Your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating. (So basically, the previous effect of the Imaging Scope. This fits better, because it will usually trigger when the Defense Rating is very high because of Cover and Armor)
No single piece of equipment should have the potential to nullify an aspect of a character build that required substantial resources to achieve. This is the pinnacle of poor game balance imo. If they want to make it possible for AR to match the potential for DR, that is fine. It should just require the same level of investment in essence, power points, spells, and/or money that it takes to acquire that level of DR.
I want you to think about this for a moment. Figurative "you" makes a physical adept or street samuari, and decides that being a super tough edge-generating on defense machine sounds fun. You spend all 3 of your starting power points into mystic armor or the vast majority of your essence and nuyen into bone lacing, cyberlimbs, and dermal plating. During the course of your play some enemy fires on you and says "Oh and by the way, you can't gain edge from my attack because i spent 350 nuyen on this scope", how do you think that will make figurative "you" feel? I took one look at this system and realized focusing on DR wasn't worth the effort, but even I am still irate that someone thought allowing this to potentially happen was an acceptable idea.
-
I tend to agree with Lormyr here. Completely negating armour feels cheap, and it also makes APDS the only ammo anyone will choose (which is boring). How about a reduction to the target's DR value from APDS, instead? It goes against the implicit design goal of "AR and DR values are static and pre-calculated to speed combat resolution" but even so it might be the lesser evil.
-
Devil's Advocate here...
APDS giving a - to DR is mechanically the same thing as giving a + to AR, which is what it already does. And AR is already variable thanks to gun mods, firing modes, taking aim, going prone, etc. Adding variability to DR is probably not helpful from a streamlining POV.
-
- APDS Ammo: No reduction of the Damage Code, no change to AR. New Effect: Your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating. (So basically, the previous effect of the Imaging Scope. This fits better, because it will usually trigger when the Defense Rating is very high because of Cover and Armor)
No single piece of equipment should have the potential to nullify an aspect of a character build that required substantial resources to achieve. This is the pinnacle of poor game balance imo. If they want to make it possible for AR to match the potential for DR, that is fine. It should just require the same level of investment in essence, power points, spells, and/or money that it takes to acquire that level of DR.
I want you to think about this for a moment. Figurative "you" makes a physical adept or street samuari, and decides that being a super tough edge-generating on defense machine sounds fun. You spend all 3 of your starting power points into mystic armor or the vast majority of your essence and nuyen into bone lacing, cyberlimbs, and dermal plating. During the course of your play some enemy fires on you and says "Oh and by the way, you can't gain edge from my attack because i spent 350 nuyen on this scope", how do you think that will make figurative "you" feel? I took one look at this system and realized focusing on DR wasn't worth the effort, but even I am still irate that someone thought allowing this to potentially happen was an acceptable idea.
I´m on your side here in principle, but in this case, APDS is literally the exact kind of "tool" that is supposed to nullify the advantage from high Armor and Cover.
I am pretty sure we´re on the same side that this effect makes no damn sense for the Imaging Scope, after all ;D
So: If someone insists that there really should be a piece of gear with that kind of effect - at least stick it to something that fits!
Feel free to suggest a different effect for APDS. I could think of other mechanics that would fit the purpose just as nicely, mostly revolving around the reduction of (Hardened) Armor and/or Cover Levels (which, unlike the current effect of increasing AR, would actually care if there is some form of protection to begin with). Or just stick with the increased AR, but ditch the Damage Reduction, so it´s not and absolute trap. Or you keep the Damage reduction (because something something overpenetration), but make the bonus against armored targets powerfull enough so that it is justified. This one is just my humble attempt to "rearrange" some parts of the RAW to make at least some sense.
-
Oh, huh, you're right. I worded that wrongly. What I meant was to subtract from only the armour portion of DR, leaving other types alone. But when you put it your way, it's a fair bit more work for little real gain over just increasing the AR.
-
Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game. Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot? If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor
-
Oh, huh, you're right. I worded that wrongly. What I meant was to subtract from only the armour portion of DR, leaving other types alone. But when you put it your way, it's a fair bit more work for little real gain over just increasing the AR.
Reducing the Armor score instead of the AR can also mean that the amount of reduction is proportional to the total Armor Score.
Example: "APDS cuts the target´s armor value in half (round up). This applies to hardened Armor as well."
This is a thing that many systems that offer some kind of "Armor Penetration" mechanic don´t get quite right IMO. When the AP reduces armor by a fixed amount, then its viability is largely independent of the question how much total armor the target has as long as that value is equal to or higher than the amount of reduction. If the reduction is proportional to the Armor score, it basically means: "The more armor the target has, the better it is to use APDS in comparison to other types of Ammo."
-
Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game. Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot? If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor
Yeah, I think I'd go with +2 AR / -1 DV against normal people, maybe +2/- against vehicles, negates up to 2 autohits of Hardened Armor?
-
Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game. Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot? If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor
+1 for realism ;)
That damage reduction is not unsubstantiated from that perspective. However, the advantage of APDS against the right targets has to be quite massive to balance this drawback out - both from a realism and a balancing perspective.
-
I´m on your side here in principle, but in this case, APDS is literally the exact kind of "tool" that is supposed to nullify the advantage from high Armor and Cover.
I am pretty sure we´re on the same side that this effect makes no damn sense for the Imaging Scope, after all ;D
My criticism of 6e is not just about making sense. When I evaluate a game, I look at four aspects: game balance, fun, logic, and player expectation. Game balance is the most important to me personally, but it wins by a narrow margin.
APDS, as written, does it's job just fine - it assists the attacker in overcoming DR in a balanced way. The imaging scope, however, fails all four check points for me.
And that is the real overall issue I have with 6e. In the non-combat department, rigger mess aside, I am content to slightly happy with the changes and direction. In the combat department though, the system is a disappointment to me, particularly in the game balance and player expectations departments.
-
Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game. Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot? If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor
Yeah, I think I'd go with +2 AR / -1 DV against normal people, maybe +2/- against vehicles, negates up to 2 autohits of Hardened Armor?
It´s maybe a bit too complicated for my taste, but it goes in the right direction.
Another Suggestion: Decrease Damage by 1 as before (regardless of the type of target). Cut the following ratings in half (round up) for the target: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover rating.
Side note: If you want APDS to have some kind of special interaction with Hardened Armor, then it´s probably a good idea to first determine if HA needs some kind of change as well. With the overall damage reduction, Spirits have gone out of hand.
APDS, as written, does it's job just fine - it assists the attacker in overcoming DR in a balanced way.
With the added Damage reduction, no. It´s an absolute Trap.
-
With the added Damage reduction, no. It´s an absolute Trap.
Where I would say it is balanced. What is more important on this attack? You gaining edge, your victim not gaining edge, or you doing one additional point of damage. Choose well.
-
Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game. Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot? If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor
Truth does come from the mouth of (forum) babes.
As for the "discarding sabot" part of the name: yes that's exactly what it is. I prefer to selectively ignore that and pretend they're simple bullets with future-teflon coatings or something. But yes, technically they leave behind tiny little sabots. It's even referenced over in the RFID section :D
As for the proverbial wailing and gnashing of teeth about the effectiveness of APDS ammo in this edition: my pet theory is there's more than a little dissonance about how APDS used to be the god-bullet that you were wrong to NOT use in the previous edition. There's people very not used to APDS being hands-down better than every other option (for when you're trying to kill someone, at any rate... nonlethal rounds always were preferable for subduing a target without killing them!)
-
With the added Damage reduction, no. It´s an absolute Trap.
Where I would say it is balanced. What is more important on this attack? You gaining edge, your victim not gaining edge, or you doing one additional point of damage. Choose well.
That 1 point of damage has about the same worth than 1 Point of Edge. So that assertment would be somewhat true if the Ammo choice is guaranteed to give you an Edge (or denying one). However, it´s quite likely that this measly +2 AP increase is not going to make the difference that either grants you and Edge or denies Edge. Not to mention the 2-Edge-per-round limit ::) And in that case, it´s just a pointless damage reduction without any benefit.
Not to mention that increasing AP as mechanic doesn´t really care if the target has Armor.
Another Suggestion:
Drawback: Decreases Damage by 1 as before (regardless of the type of target).
Benefit: Cut the following ratings in half (round up) for the target: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover.
-
I personally think the 1 damage is more valuable, but that is kind of the whole point. APDS can be situationally better than 1 damage, but usually not. That is the sort of versatility that cheap resources should be providing. On occasion, but uncommonly.
-
However, it´s quite likely that this measly AP increase is not going to make the difference that either grants you and Edge or denies Edge. And in that case, it´s just a damage reduction without any purpose whatsoever.
It's possible that +2 AR doesn't make a difference on edge gain, sure.
But there's no "Augmented AR" cap. Stack the bonus from smartgun, being prone, taking aim, etc. All told, you've almost GOT to be gaining edge if you make use of options available. And +2 from APDS is one less factor necessary to assemble your perfect storm for edge gain.
Furthermore, APDS ammo can be used to offset AR penalties, like with firing modes. SA bursts would be a wash with APDS, but BF is -4AR, +2DV vs -2AR, +1DV. Still get bonus damage, but the -4 vs -2 CAN be the difference between edge gain/denial.
-
I personally think the 1 damage is more valuable, but that is kind of the whole point. APDS can be situationally better than 1 damage, but usually not. That is the sort of versatility that cheap resources should be providing. On occasion, but uncommonly.
Right line of thought, but slightly off. It´s about choosing the right tool, yes.
So, in what situation is APDS supposed to be the better choice? Answer: If the target is highly Armored and/or behind barriers.
In what situation is APDS the (very, very slightly) better choice in current the RAW? Answer: If the DR is, by pure chance, around 3-4 higher or lower than the AR. Which you also don´t really know, you can just gess. So it´s not really a choice like "Ouh, this one looks tough. Better get out the APDS to get through".
-
Well, if you're talking about the opportunity cost of loading APDS vs other ammo types...
look at the Ares Pred VI :)
-
You also have to look at its cost though. To get DR high enough to matter, you have to sink a shit load of resources into it. A few nuyen bullet has no business countering that. You want APDS to wreck armor? Scale the cost appropriately and I won't criticize.
-
You also have to look at its cost though. To get DR high enough to matter, you have to sink a shit load of resources into it. A few nuyen bullet has no business countering that. You want APDS to wreck armor? Scale the cost appropriately and I won't criticize.
This is faulty logic. Just because DR can be countered it doesn't mean it's worthless. The higher the DR, the more intricate the perfect storm has to be to gain edge against it. Once your DR is up in the high teens, it's still a valuable asset to you even if, IF, someone somehow gets edge against you. For example, that person probably had to be making use of the firing while prone AR bonus, which means great things for you if you or a teammate is in melee reach. The costs involved in stacking AR that high surely involve too many Minor Actions to permit two Majors, which means you can only be shot one instead of twice, and etc.
And it shouldn't be necessary to mention, but of course even if someone is able to find a way to pay a steep opportunity cost to gain edge against your DR... the VAST majority of the time that won't be happening.
-
This is faulty logic. Just because DR can be countered it doesn't mean it's worthless.
You and I have been through this, and just have to agree to disagree. You find my logic faulty, and I find yours and the system's the same. The juice isn't worth the squeeze to scale the DR that high, even discounting scope nonsense.
In order to escape the AR range of a decent gun with a few thousand nuyen mods (AR range 18ish), the defender has to spend essence, power points, or quality points/karma poins (sustain spell or quicken) and spell slots. These things are not proportional cost in the slightest.
-
This is faulty logic. Just because DR can be countered it doesn't mean it's worthless.
You and I have been through this, and just have to agree to disagree. You find my logic faulty, and I find yours and the system's the same. The juice isn't worth the squeeze to scale the DR that high, even discounting scope nonsense.
In order to escape the AR range of a decent gun with a few thousand nuyen mods (AR range 18ish), the defender has to spend essence, power points, or quality points/karma poins (sustain spell or quicken) and spell slots. These things are not proportional cost in the slightest.
Yeah I regret using the phrase "faulty logic". We're prioritizing and deprioritizing different things, and don't agree on the value in seeing it the other's way. So, I didn't mean to offend. Indeed, agree to disagree.
-
Yeah I regret using the phrase "faulty logic". We're prioritizing and deprioritizing different things, and don't agree on the value in seeing it the other's way. So, I didn't mean to offend. Indeed, agree to disagree.
All good man. I take all challengers, keeps me sharp.
-
If Medkits cannot heal Drain, what about Slap Patches? Don't believe it mentions them in the Errata as being excluded from healing Drain.
-
Typically, NOTHING except resting can restore Drain. But you're right that the rules often miss that detail.
-
Its mentioned in the book several times that nothing except edge and rest can heal drain.
-
Are you suggesting stim patches don't help against Drain? Because I think they do.
SR5e, pg 278
"Drain damage, regardless of whether it is Stun or Physical damage, cannot be healed by any means other than the natural properties of the body—that means no magical healing and no medkits."
SR5e, pg 441
"Stim patch: This patch removes a number of boxes of Stun damage equal to its Rating. This effect lasts for (Rating x 10) minutes—after that period of time, the patient takes (Rating + 1) unresisted Stun damage (which may be well become physical overflow by that point)."
The first paragraph doesn't mention slap patches, the second paragraph doesn't describe stim patches as "healing". I would characterise stim patches as temporarily removing the effects of damage without actually fixing it. I don't see why that means they wouldn't work (temporarily) on Stun Drain damage.
-
Mission's errata has them remove drain temporarily. If I recall correctly you end up with one more drain than you started with. Of course, you can't rest while you're on a stim patch as well.
-
Any word on Errata on the dumpster fire that is 6e Priority system? Specifically how Magic is handled?
-
Sorry but unless JM Hardy personally clears it, I don't think anyone is authorised to mention anything not officially released yet on the English side. German errata team Idunno but I know from SR5 they tend to just do their own thing so can't be used as reliable English source.
-
It’s being worked on.
-
Since the identified problems/ambiguities of Magic in Character Creation and Character Progression are intertwined, I think it´s a good idea to bring them all together. Here´s what I extrapolated from the discussions in the forum so far, with my personal, subjective take on the matter in parentheses.
- Do Phyiscal Adepts get additional Power Points when increasing their Magic Attribute with Special Attribute Points? (Personal take: Yes, they should. It worked well in 5th Edition, and while 4th Edition didn´t have a Priority System, there is an important consistency: Adept Power Points = Magic Attribute. It´s easy to remember, easy to backtrack and doesn´t turn Special Attribute points into a mechanical trap for Adepts. In longer campaigns, there will often be moments where (new) players or GMs want to make adjustments to a character or just want to "check up" if everything is alright about a char. If increasing Magic through Special Attribute Points doesn´t grant Power Points while Karma does, you´ll always have to remember that there might by a couple of "dead" Points in your Magic Attribute that don´t give you additional powers because you (foolishly) decided to use your Special Attribute Points on your Magic Attribute.)
- See above, but for MysAds? (Personal take: For consistency, do it just the same as Physical Adepts, + the additional Karma cost for "unlocking" the Power Point. I do think that 5 Karma per Power point is a bit low, though. Personally, I wouldn´t even mind if the rules from 4th Edition come back that forced Mystical Adepts to "split" their Magic Attribute between Adept stuff and Magician stuff. Since there are no flexible spell ratings anymore, this would be a lot more viable in 6th Edition than it was in 4th Edition.)
- Do Magicians get additional spells when raising their Magic Attribute with Special Attribute points? (Personal take: Indifferent. If I understand it right, the current RAW is basically like 5th Edition in this regard, just written less obvious.)
- Can Magicians buy additional spells with Karma during Character generation? (Personal take: Yes, they should.)
- Burning out, part 1: Do Adepts and Mystical Adepts lose Power Points when lowering their Magic Attribute when burning out?
(Personal take: Holy shit, yes! Is this even in question?!) - Burning out, part 2: Does it reduce your maximum Magic Attribute? (Personal take: Yes, it should. Else, burning out is just a temporary dip in your Magical Potential that can easily be bought back with karma).
- Wait a minute, is there even such a thing as a maximum Magic Attribute? ( Erm. Yeah, I think I saw it popping up somewhere, don´t know if that´s really (not) in the RAW or if its just an oversight. The way I know it from 4th and 5th Edition, awakened characters can theoretically raise their Magic indefinetely as long as they keep on Initiating. Personal take: There definetely should be a limit in Chargen, but I highly doubt that this is missing, given the lack of another "Booo Magicrun" outcry about this :P Having no limit past Chargen basically means that the need for Initiation has been removed, making the whole thing it a bit cheaper. Don´t really like it, but I also don´t think it´s a gamebreaker, given the progressive Karma Cost for raising Magic itself)
- Burning out, part 3: Assuming I start with Magic 4, drop to Magic 1 because of Augmentations, and want to buy Magic back to 2: Do I pay 25 Karma or 10 Karma? (Personal take: RAW it´s probably 10 Karma, just like in 5th Edition. TBH, I´d rather have it like 4th Edition, where advancement costs were based on the Magic Attribute you would have if you hadn´t lost Essence. This burnout-buyback-discount is one of the reasons why Burnout Adepts and Mysads were so popular with powergamers in 5th Edition.)
- Burning out, part 4: If I burn out down to Zero Magic, can I buy back my Magic with Karma? (Personal take: No. Or more precisely: Not for measly 5 Karma, not without GMs permission and not without jumping through some RP hoops - thinking about Glory in Shadowrun: Dragonfall here. It´s always been canon that a total burnot means a total disconnect from your magical abilities that´s usually permanent.)
Note: I´m not arguing which kind of interpretation is supported by the RAW, because
a. I know only some controversial snippets of the RAW and not the whole picture.
b. frankly, I don´t care. This is a thread about Errata, so let´s talk about how things should work and not how the current RAW can or can not be interpreted ;) Also, if there is ground for discussion on how the RAW works, that alone is a reason for errata.
Edit: Numbered the Bullet points and added #6
-
Burning out, part 3: Assuming I start with Magic 4, drop to Magic 1 because of Augmentations, and want to buy Magic back to 2: Do I pay 25 Karma or 10 Karma? (Personal take: RAW it´s probably 10 Karma, just like in 5th Edition. TBH, I´d rather have it like 4th Edition, where advancement costs were based on the Magic Attribute you would have if you hadn´t lost Essence. This burnout-buyback-discount is one of the reasons why Burnout Adepts and Mysads were so popular with powergamers in 5th Edition.)
Is there anyone who thinks "10 karma" is the preferable answer to that? It's extremely munchkin IMO.
-
I don't care about invisible values. If you burn Edge 3x from 5 to 2, you're buying back to 3 so you pay for rank 3. If you lost magic and now are spending karma, your current rank matters. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that opinion.
-
Burning out and buying back: IMO the order of operations answers the question of how much karma you spend (is it at the highest or lowest, post-cyberware implantation)
Step 1: Formulate your character idea.
Step 2: pick the priority array. Inside step 2 is spending your resources- e.g. buying (and presumably implanting, since there's never a step for that expressed elsewhere) augmentations. Whether you spend SAPs on Magic before or after spending nuyen on resources is moot. 1 SAP = 1 MAG increase, irrespective of MAG value.
Step 3: Select Qualities
Step 4: Spend Karma. If you want to spend Karma on your MAG attribute, by this point it's already been previously modified by SAPs and Essence loss. If MAG is at 1 (or even 0.. nothing says you became a mundane at 0 magic) at this point, you spend karma accordingly.
-
I don't care about invisible values. If you burn Edge 3x from 5 to 2, you're buying back to 3 so you pay for rank 3. If you lost magic and now are spending karma, your current rank matters. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that opinion.
For one, mages are pretty buff without help like this. If you see a tactic being consistently seized upon by munchkin players, then that's a smell that something is balanced wrong.
For two, it's been well-established in the fluff since forever that burnouts are at worst tragic figures who sold their soul cheap and at best are walking a dangerous path; cheap karma rebuys of lost Magic undermines that. There's no danger in burning out. You can take your magic down to 1 and get it back to 4 for 45 karma. That's not some staggeringly high number that PCs are not going to achieve outside of unusually long campaigns.
But for three, it's inconsistent with karma coats and stat buffs. If you have Agility 5 and muscle toner rating 2, you have 5(7). Your next rank in that costs 30 karma, not 40, because it's computed on the base stat. I don't see why Magic shouldn't be the same but in reverse. You have Magic 5, you get 3.7 Essence points of cyberware fitted, now your magic is 5(1). To go to 6(2) costs you 30 karma. I see the loss of Magic as a result of Essence loss as a permanent debuff.
-
I agree with penllawen. If you're adding 'ware that brings your Essence down, then your Magic down during character creation, it should cost based on the Priority Magic Rating, not the adjusted. If it's based on adjusted, it feels too much like initiation for free. Not too mention, if they purchased Magic 4, went down 3 Essence, then bought it back up to 4, it looks like they started with 7 magic.
-
This is of benefit to precious few mage builds. Adepts are the main audience this will appeal to due to the current wording of power point calculation at chargen. All of the things that disincentivize doing this in 5e are currently absent in this edition.
The current system needs adjustment so that maxing out power points at chargen is possible, and essence/magic loss results in power point loss.
-
I agree with penllawen. If you're adding 'ware that brings your Essence down, then your Magic down during character creation, it should cost based on the Priority Magic Rating, not the adjusted. If it's based on adjusted, it feels too much like initiation for free. Not too mention, if they purchased Magic 4, went down 3 Essence, then bought it back up to 4, it looks like they started with 7 magic.
In chargen, is gear pre customization, post or during?
After chargen I think it should be based on current, period. During, I think it's screwing yourself partially and so streamlining wins for me unless gear comes after karma.
-
Good point... Gear (Step 5) is purchased AFTER customization (Step 4).
-
Well then it's easy. ;)
-
This is getting into a situation where the the new rules are grating against the established lore. You either:
- Believe that you can buy back magic ability after losing points to augmentations (in some cases, after burning out completely). This is the mechanical interpretation of the RAW.
OR
- Believe that losing essence is permanent, and that you shouldn't be able to buy magic beyond what you have lost. This is the long-established lore interpretation, and had some mechanical anchors in previous editions. Once you lose essence, its gone, and with it should go any ability tied to it.
Personally, I agree with the latter. The idea penllawen had to treat it like an augmented ability makes a lot of sense. It should function as a constant resistance to your ability to wield magic, both in maximum ability and in advancement. And this negative mechanic already exists in the new rules for medkits and first aid, where lower essence makes you harder to heal.
Regardless of when your character buffs their magic ability, they should be paying extra to get augments and still be able to cast spells. It would also limit the ability of people to powergame with burnout mages/adepts.
So get your magic 5, burn down to 1 essence, and your magic reating is 5[0] until you pay 30 karma to get back to 6[1].
-
Per the discussions over on the Missions GMs forums I was told that even though the steps are numbered they shouldn't be considered to be done in order.
"Sometimes you do things in order, sometimes you don't, depending on the GMs mood." is less desirable than a clear instruction.
Just sayin' is all.
-
So, back in the day, when Magic defaulted to 6, it used to be that your Magic rating increasing past the current maximum was gated by Initiation (which added +1 to the attribute, or later +1 to the maximum rating). I'm not sure which edition caused this limitation to disappear, but I assume it was originally there to prevent the abuse of the system that the above comments describe now being possible. It was never originally conceived of as an attribute in the same sense as the others, and didn't have the same ability to be manipulated through direct Karma spends. Initiation used to include the boost in the package.
If nothing has changed in the game world about what happens when you lose Essence/add augmentation, then what should be happening in this edition is that your *maximum* Magic attribute should be dropping as you lose Essence. Follow this by noting that the only way to exceed your current maximum Magic attribute is to Initiate, thus allowing you a +1 higher cap for each initiation grade. Anything less than that is allowing abuse as described here, which would be pretty game-breaking if it were the intent.
It should also be specified what happens if you drop you Maximum Magic attribute lower than the amount needed to cover your Power Points or Mystic Adept abilities. I assume this has also not changed between editions, but I may be wrong, of course.
If the intentions have changed, then I have no meaningful input to offer.
The real question for designers is if they meant to change anything about the way Magic and Essence interacted in this edition. If not, just rewrite it back to the way it was.
-
Also, the whole burn out thing. Make an optimized Burn out Adept. Make an optimized "Pure" Adept. Go on, I'll wait, I have.
Compare them. Give them both 50 Karma and 100k. Compare. Hand out another 50 Karma and 100k.
Tell me the dice pool differences between these two characters is greater than if someone chooses poorly during Priority Selection.
If the optimization behavior you're concerned with has less impact than simply choosing better Priorities I'm not sure why you'd be worried. Personally I'd think you'd want to raise the floor of character performance so the optimization matters less. YMMV.
-
I'm going with 'you may need to take something later on that allowed a previous step, but expenses are in order'. Points before karma, karma before gear.
-
For burnouts as opposed to bad priority choices. Other things being potentially more broken isn’t what I’d call balanced.
That being said what grates on me about the edge going to the burnout is that it goes against the lore. The rules should support the setting not fight it.
-
For burnouts as opposed to bad priority choices. Other things being potentially more broken isn’t what I’d call balanced.
I'd agree, but I feel it is a valid argument for prioritizing Errata.
-
So, back in the day, when Magic defaulted to 6, it used to be that your Magic rating increasing past the current maximum was gated by Initiation (which added +1 to the attribute, or later +1 to the maximum rating). I'm not sure which edition caused this limitation to disappear, but I assume it was originally there to prevent the abuse of the system that the above comments describe now being possible. It was never originally conceived of as an attribute in the same sense as the others, and didn't have the same ability to be manipulated through direct Karma spends. Initiation used to include the boost in the package.
You got me curious, so I dug into my big library o' Old Shadowrun Stuff [see attachment] to refresh my memory:
2e CRB: No initiation. "If a character can use Magic, his Magic rating starts at 6, but is equal to the Essence Rating, rounded down." Magic is basically a derived attribution, like Reaction used to be.
Also, you can lose Magic points when you suffer Deadly damage or when you are healed incorrectly -- roll 2d6, if you roll under your Magic attribute you lose 1 point, if you roll snake eyes you always lose 1 point. With, at that point, no chance of ever getting them back. Ooof, that's cruel by modern standards.
The Grimoire: No idea, my copy appears to be irritatingly missing. But I'm pretty sure this is where initiation was first introduced and your description above is correct. Every initiation rank just added 1 directly to the character's Magic attribute, and that was the only way to increase it.
Awakenings: New Magic in 2057: mentions initiation but only in the context of additional rules for adepts and physads. Also very briefly mentions the concept of mysads (I had totally forgotten that) except they're called "physical magicians."
3e CRB: "If you have assigned a priority to Magic, then your character's Magic Rating is equal to his or her Essence, rounded down." No initiation rules, and I don't have any 3e splatbooks.
So it must be either 4e, 4eA, or 5e that made this change to treating Magic as a full-fledged Attribute in its own right. And, to be fair, that brings one very clear benefit - you can now have street-level mages with Magic attributes below 6, representing their lack of training and experience.
-
That being said what grates on me about the edge going to the burnout is that it goes against the lore. The rules should support the setting not fight it.
I totally agree. On that note, while I was flipping through old books just now (see my post above), I came across this fluff text that's very much in the vein of "burning out is very bad" (https://imgur.com/a/ZthdRLX). I think that's very typical of how Shadowrun lore treats burnout, and I find it completely at odds with the idea that you can cheaply buy back lost Magic points in the manner described above.
-
There's only 2 things new about the way the magic attribute works in 6we:
Essence loss only causes a reduction in Magic... not Magic and Maximum Magic
0 Magic is not said to end your existence as a magician. (iirc this is new to 6we... I *believe* I remember that in 5e hitting 0 Magic meant you weren't a magician anymore)
-
There's only 2 things new about the way the magic attribute works in 6we:
Essence loss only causes a reduction in Magic... not Magic and Maximum Magic
0 Magic is not said to end your existence as a magician. (iirc this is new to 6we... I *believe* I remember that in 5e hitting 0 Magic meant you weren't a magician anymore)
Pretty sure total burn out happened at 0 Max Magic in 5E. Magic could hit 0 as long as Max Magic didn't. The whole D Magic Adept Priority, stick in augments then buy up Magic to 1 with 5 Karma is not new to 6th.
-
I don't care about invisible values. If you burn Edge 3x from 5 to 2, you're buying back to 3 so you pay for rank 3. If you lost magic and now are spending karma, your current rank matters. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that opinion.
Oh, I also don´t think that this is unbelievable or incomprehensible. There are some valid reasons to keep it like you said and not the other way.
One could argue that it´s easier to understand because there are no "invisible values" to care about (which happens to be the reason why I think that Adepts should get PP from Special Attribute Points as well ;)). I´d say it´s not that hard to manage, though. In 4th Edition, I noted the "orginal" Magical Attribute that you would raise with Karma, followed by the "effective" Magical Attribute ("original" Magic minus Essence Loss) in Parantheses. But hell, even the fact that you can save lots of Karma by incremently augmenting yourself at Magic 2 and buying the points back cheaply can be loosely justified (slowly acclimating your Magic to your Augmentations, yadda yadda, argle bargle...). For me, it´s mostly a balancing thing. IMO the burnout-buyback-trick is a bit too easy and cheap way to build a Burnout Mage or Adept. It doesn´t fit with the lore, where burning out has usually more serious consequences.
It´s good to know now that you buy gear and augmentations after everything else now. That way, Fans of Burnout Cheese at least can´t pull this off at chargen. That alone may be enough to reduce the number of cheesy burnout Adepts, because from my observations, they are most popular by powergaming/min-max fans that want to be 110% ready and powerfull right out of the box ::)
Whatever you (and/or the powers that be) prefer: There should be no ambiguity left on what´s the final verdict. If the RAW has any room for different interpretations, it´s still something that needs an errata ;)
There's only 2 things new about the way the magic attribute works in 6we:
Essence loss only causes a reduction in Magic... not Magic and Maximum Magic
0 Magic is not said to end your existence as a magician. (iirc this is new to 6we... I *believe* I remember that in 5e hitting 0 Magic meant you weren't a magician anymore)
Pretty sure total burn out happened at 0 Max Magic in 5E. Magic could hit 0 as long as Max Magic didn't. The whole D Magic Adept Priority, stick in augments then buy up Magic to 1 with 5 Karma is not new to 6th.
Wait, that was RAI in 5th Edition? Holy shit ::)
I always thought that you still need at least this 1 point of Magic to buy yourself back to 2. This cuts the already cheap price for the burnout-buyback-cheese in half again.
Screw it, THAT should definetely not be RAW. It´s ridiculously cheesy and not in line with the lore around bornouts - the fact that it may have been RAW/RAI in 5th Edition doesn´t make it any better :P
-
That being said what grates on me about the edge going to the burnout is that it goes against the lore. The rules should support the setting not fight it.
I totally agree. On that note, while I was flipping through old books just now (see my post above), I came across this fluff text that's very much in the vein of "burning out is very bad" (https://imgur.com/a/ZthdRLX). I think that's very typical of how Shadowrun lore treats burnout, and I find it completely at odds with the idea that you can cheaply buy back lost Magic points in the manner described above.
+1
-
So, back in the day, when Magic defaulted to 6, it used to be that your Magic rating increasing past the current maximum was gated by Initiation (which added +1 to the attribute, or later +1 to the maximum rating). I'm not sure which edition caused this limitation to disappear, but I assume it was originally there to prevent the abuse of the system that the above comments describe now being possible. It was never originally conceived of as an attribute in the same sense as the others, and didn't have the same ability to be manipulated through direct Karma spends. Initiation used to include the boost in the package.
You got me curious, so I dug into my big library o' Old Shadowrun Stuff [see attachment] to refresh my memory:
2e CRB: No initiation. "If a character can use Magic, his Magic rating starts at 6, but is equal to the Essence Rating, rounded down." Magic is basically a derived attribution, like Reaction used to be.
Also, you can lose Magic points when you suffer Deadly damage or when you are healed incorrectly -- roll 2d6, if you roll under your Magic attribute you lose 1 point, if you roll snake eyes you always lose 1 point. With, at that point, no chance of ever getting them back. Ooof, that's cruel by modern standards.
The Grimoire: No idea, my copy appears to be irritatingly missing. But I'm pretty sure this is where initiation was first introduced and your description above is correct. Every initiation rank just added 1 directly to the character's Magic attribute, and that was the only way to increase it.
Awakenings: New Magic in 2057: mentions initiation but only in the context of additional rules for adepts and physads. Also very briefly mentions the concept of mysads (I had totally forgotten that) except they're called "physical magicians."
3e CRB: "If you have assigned a priority to Magic, then your character's Magic Rating is equal to his or her Essence, rounded down." No initiation rules, and I don't have any 3e splatbooks.
So it must be either 4e, 4eA, or 5e that made this change to treating Magic as a full-fledged Attribute in its own right. And, to be fair, that brings one very clear benefit - you can now have street-level mages with Magic attributes below 6, representing their lack of training and experience.
1st Edition Grimoire [FASA07106]
Benefits of Initiation
When a magician makes it to Grade 0, he is officially an initiate. He can use metamagic and travel on the Metaplanes of Astral Space. However, Grade 0 does not increase his Magic Attribute.
At each grade higher than 0, the initiate adds 1 point to his Magic Attribute. Various magical operations will also gain advantages because he adds his grade to his other scores. Anywhere this bonus applies is specifically noted throughout these rules.
-
There's only 2 things new about the way the magic attribute works in 6we:
Essence loss only causes a reduction in Magic... not Magic and Maximum Magic
0 Magic is not said to end your existence as a magician. (iirc this is new to 6we... I *believe* I remember that in 5e hitting 0 Magic meant you weren't a magician anymore)
Terrible enough if RAW, even more terrible when confirmed as RAI.
Keep in mind that there is no negative Magic value, so coming back from Zero would cost the same measly 5 Karma no matter how hard you cybered up. So screw the incremental burnout-buyback-trick, amagine this instead: At chargen, you start with an Adept (or Magician or Mysad...) at the lowest Priority and Magic Attribute possible. Apart from that, you go full Streetsam, with 5,9 Esssence in the biggest and baddest Augmentations. Of course, your precious magic drops to Zero. But lo and behold: Just 5 Karma in the game, and your magical spark is alive again with a magic Attribute of 1. 25 Karma, and you are already at 3. Basically, you just level up your magic like any other low-level Magician would. The only difference is that you also walk around like RoboCop, because you were smart enough to Augment yourself before investing in your Magic.
Here´s a humble little suggestion to prevent this. Fits in one easy to comprehend sentence, and if I remember correctly, this sentence was also in 4th and 5th Edition:
"Your maximum Magic Attribute is equal to Essence (round down) + Initiation Grade".
(And maybe, just maybe that sentence was actually just forgotten to add in 6th Edition, because argle bargle foofaraw what is editing baby don´t hurt me...)
-
Where are you getting the idea that Essence Loss ever lowered the Maximum Magic Rating? Granted, in 1st/2nd/3rd the only way to raise Magic was through Initiation, but 4th edition is where they made the change that Magic started at 1 at CharGen and you bought up your rating in CharGen. Then you could spend Karma and raise it up in advancement like any other attribute up to a maximum of 6+Initiate Grade. Essence loss and such only reduced the rating, not the maximum.
-
Iirc in 4 and 5 you lost both current and max?_?
-
1st Edition Grimoire [FASA07106]
What did initiation cost back then? My memory has totally failed me.
-
Where are you getting the idea that Essence Loss ever lowered the Maximum Magic Rating?
SR5 page 278:
Magic has a starting value from 1 to 6 (or 7 with the Exceptional Attribute quality), but you don’t have to settle for that limit forever. You can go through a process called Initiation (p. 324) that can enhance your abilities. The maximum value of your Magic Attribute (if you have one) is 6 + your Initiation level.
Anything that reduces your Essence also reduces your Magic rating. For every point (or fraction thereof) of Essence lost, both your current Magic Attribute and your maximum Magic Rating are reduced by one. If your Magic is reduced to zero, you can no longer use any skill requiring the Magic attribute, even if your maximum Rating is still greater than zero (but you can still raise the attribute with Karma and then get back to the spellslinging). If your maximum rating falls to zero, you’ve burned out, losing all magical abilities, including astral perception and projection. You are mundane forever.
-
Iirc in 4 and 5 you lost both current and max?_?
Found the sections:
SR4 p177
Anything that reduces a character’s Essence will also reduce Magic.
For every point (or fraction thereof ) of Essence lost, the character’s
Magic attribute and her Magic maximum rating are reduced by one.
A character with a Magic of 4, for example, whose Essence is reduced
to 5.8 has her Magic immediately reduced to 3 and her maximum to 5.
Further Essence reductions do not reduce the character’s Magic again
until Essence drops below 5.
If a character’s Magic is ever reduced to 0, she can no longer perform
any kind of magic. The magician has “burned out,” losing all
magical ability and becoming a mundane forever
SR5 p278
Anything that reduces your Essence also reduces
your Magic rating. For every point (or fraction thereof)
of Essence lost, both your current Magic Attribute and
your maximum Magic Rating are reduced by one. If your
Magic is reduced to zero, you can no longer use any skill
requiring the Magic attribute, even if your maximum
Rating is still greater than zero (but you can still raise the
attribute with Karma and then get back to the spellslinging).
If your maximum rating falls to zero, you’ve burned
out, losing all magical abilities, including astral perception
and projection. You are mundane forever.
-
In SR5, as long as you initiated at least once (which is only 11 karma) your maximum magic rating could not really hit zero anymore. Which made it a rather pointless rule to be honest. Might as well scratch it (and they probably did for SR6).
In SR6, you maximum initiation grade is equal to your current magic rating and your current magic rating might be reduced if your essence is reduced. Which mean that if you get augmentations post chargen you might risk losing initiation grades and with it the metamagic you picked..... but besides power points from initiation.... losing essence will not cause you to lose free or spells, rituals or power points you got during chargen or spells, rituals or power points you manged to secure post chargen.
-
Where are you getting the idea that Essence Loss ever lowered the Maximum Magic Rating?
Long story short: The fact that´s written in the core rule books ::)
Thanks @Michael Chandra for searching out the corresponding paragraphs. I don´t have my 4th and 5th Edition Rulebooks at hand right now.
So apart from the fact that
- yes, Essence loss decreased the maximum Magic Attribute and
- yes, Burning out down to Zero Magic made you "mundane forever"
since the last 2 Editions: Does the scenario below sound right to you?
At chargen, you start with an Adept (or Magician or Mysad...) at the lowest Priority and Magic Attribute possible. Apart from that, you go full Streetsam, with 5,9 Esssence in the biggest and baddest Augmentations. Of course, your precious magic drops to Zero. But lo and behold: Just 5 Karma in the game, and your magical spark is alive again with a magic Attribute of 1. 25 Karma, and you are already at 3. Basically, you just level up your magic like any other low-level Magician would. The only difference is that you also walk around like RoboCop, because you were smart enough to Augment yourself before investing in your Magic.
Because that´s what these 2 rules prevented.
-
What did initiation cost back then? My memory has totally failed me.
18 Karma + Initiation Grade. Base 15 if you took an Ordeal. You picked one metamagic power and got a +1 to your magic attribute, I think? Or maybe you got them all in 2nd? There my memory fails me.
I think the Karma costs are lower now, but the Magic increase is also a different cost, technically making it more expensive for the same benefit as in prior editions by an order of magnitude. Given the complaints around Magicrun, it might be a better balance point in 4/5, and it does give casters more of a sense of power scale relative to each other.
Spells also caused physical damage only if the Force exceeded your Magic Rating, an effect now completely lost by the time of 6E. It makes drain results unpredictable. Not as big a fan of that, but it is what it is.
-
Thanks, I was going through the books, but had to stop before I got to the 4th and 5th Editions. I was honestly asking because I couldn't remember seeing it.
1st Edition Grimoire [FASA07106]
What did initiation cost back then? My memory has totally failed me.
If self-initiating it was 3× (Magic Rating + Initiate Grade that you were taking). If with a group, it was 2×, and ordeals reduced them by a .5 multiplier.
-
In SR5, as long as you initiated at least once (which is only 11 karma) your maximum magic rating could not really hit zero anymore. Which made it a rather pointless rule to be honest. Might as well scratch it (and they probably did for SR6).
Accidental or deliberate choice, it's an honest simplification over previous editions. ;)