Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shadowhack on <01-17-20/1800:42>
-
I just saw this a few minutes ago. It also looks like they added a bit of fiction along with the update. I wonder how significant the editing changes are going to be.
The fixed book is in the zip file. The fillable pdf character sheet they have uploaded is not correct. They forgot to hit multi-line when creating the sheet. I fixed it but it won't let me upload it here.
-
I'm starting to compile changes here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zm4U9wwf0voIriBLUjdgjvIQi_Za2_rY7PZ-S87jSc/edit?usp=sharing). Following the "if you bring an umbrella, it won't rain" dilemma I have, presumably this means a change list will be published once I'm about 50-75% done.
-
Bone Lacing went from a modifier to a static damage value, but Bone Density didn't.
Also Bone Lacing went from +1/+1/+2, to 3/4/4. So Aluminum got a buff.
-
It'll be good when the errata pdf actually drops with those changes.
-
I did a file comparison and it said 0 changes to the file. maybe it was just an update tot he zip file that went with it?
Or I am an idiot and I compared the wrong file. Inside the zip folder is another core book and this one is updated.
For those that use drivethru you need what is in the zip file and not the book that is listed outside of the zipfile.
-
/u/Orffen on the subreddit used a PDF Diff software to parse through the thing and find the changes.
No worries Redwulfe- I have made the mistake of doing hash comparisons for the names of files instead of the files themselves in the past.
-
So the resonance wording related to essence still confuses me ... I though before (previous versions) you’re resonance = int(essence) ... so 5.1 essence gave you 5 resonance ... this states that at 5.1 essence you still have 6 resonance.
Is this the way it always worked and I’m just remembering incorrectly or is this something new?
-
Damage code for unarmed melee is now a fixed 2S, not the (STR/2) that was previously inferred from the grapple rules.
Which is at least mechanically consistent with armed melee, but means Strength is less important than ever.
-
Well. Analytical Mind hasn't changed so is still thoroughly broken. Wow.
-
So... SA firing mode is described on page 109 as firing 2 shots (specificically by pulling the trigger twice)
Many weapons have a SA firing mode but not an SS firing mode.
Can I fire a single shot (using the SS rules) from a SA weapon?
It has been noted and passed on to the Errata team to make sure there is clarification on this.
This does not appear to have been addressed in the updated PDF. There are no changes to the text on page 109.
-
I cannot discuss Anticipation in any detail other than the RAW-parsing Xenon and I performed before, due to an errata discussion on it that is covered by NDA.
Anticipation is under rule clarification debate and unfortunately the exact details are under NDA. I hope clarifications will be released soon. :-X :-\
I don't believe Anticipation has been clarified or changed in the new PDF. Page 47 has not changed. It's still only implicit that Anticipation cannot be used with a gun in FA mode, based on the close reading that FA mode doesn't require the Multiple Attack action.
-
what exactly is the DV for unarmed damage is very much being hammered out once and for all.
The DV for unarmed damage is now a fixed 2S. The text under the Grapple section continues to say "If the attack is successful, the attacker does their unarmed combat damage (Strength/2, rounded up) plus net hits" which conflicts with that.
-
Something else: We're currently debating page 39's augmented increase to skills. I believe it does not apply to dicepool modifiers but only to explicit skill rank modifiers (aka Reflex Recorder and Improved Ability), but opinions differ.
The updated PDF makes no changes to page 39.
-
There might be other means in the future but note the rules state you are capped to 5 Minors at the start of your turn, which I suspect should be 6.
Can this be pointed to Errata team for confirmation?
it's already on the list
This has not changed, the limit of 5 minor actions remains (page 109 in the updated PDF.)
-
I see index. That was written, "shotguns .See Shotguns skill and, 109".
But shotgun rule doesn't exist there.
That index is error?
Yes, it's on the list to fix in errata. Right now, Shotguns are simply guns that can also handle Flechette ammo.
This has not changed. There are no bespoke rules for shotguns in the updated PDF. The erroneous reference to page 109 (grouped under "Weapons") remains in the index.
-
Except that the errata note an Edge 'Action' (they meant Expenditure) cannot be discounted to 0, so for rerolls it's the difference between 'can I get any discount or not'.
And yes, it needs official clarification/errata. It's come up. Fortunately, I have no idea what the errata team's opinion is on it, so I can state 'I'm functioning under assumption X'.
There doesn't appear to have been any update or clarification to how multiple uses of the "reroll 1 die for 1 Edge" mechanic interacts with buffs that reduce the cost of Edge action.
-
Or you can go with Hephaestus´ idea of APDS denying Edge gain from AR/DR.
You already gain that advantage by using an imaging scope....
I still think it would be better if APDS reduced target's armor rating by 2.
(the effect would be similar to +2 AR as it have right now, but it would have a bigger impact on targets with hardened armor).
Hardened Armor is yet another subject I can't comment on due to NDA... =/
How does 'nullifies 2 autohits of Hardened Armor' sound as possible houserule, so that against Hardened Armor it's actually +1 DV instead of -1 DV? But only if they have strong enough for 2 autohits?
Hardened armour hasn't changed (page 224.) Neither has APDS (page 262.)
-
Do you really need to make a dozen posts?
Damage code for unarmed melee is now a fixed 2S, not the (STR/2) that was previously inferred from the grapple rules.
Rules are less consistent, as the 'damage the opponent' grapple rules still refer to the base unarmed combat damage being str/2 and astral combat is tradition attribute /2.
-
Do you really need to make a dozen posts?
I knew I was going to get interrupted so I started with one post per thing. Then I didn’t get interrupted until later, so ended up with more posts than I expected to make.
-
Damage code for unarmed melee is now a fixed 2S, not the (STR/2) that was previously inferred from the grapple rules.
Which is at least mechanically consistent with armed melee, but means Strength is less important than ever.
Apparently, We´re supposed to add Strenght to the AR of Melee Weapons now (which I´d consider a step in the right direction, as it gives a consistent purpose to strenght in melee).
However, that can only be extrapolated by an updated Combat example on p.109 and a statement that "Whips add the attackers Reaction instead of Strength to the Attack Rating". No actual rules text to reflect this change, and multiple places where the previous role (or non-role) of Strenght in melee combat remains the same.
Fuck sake. Anybody ever heard about CRTL+F? Heard it´s all the rage now in the editing biz.
-
Finally I can start compiling houserules! ^_^
-
However, that can only be extrapolated by an updated Combat example on p.109 and a statement that "Whips add the attackers Reaction instead of Strength to the Attack Rating". No actual rules text to reflect this change, and multiple places where the previous role (or non-role) of Strenght in melee combat remains the same.
Yo dawg
I heard you like errata
Well now even our corrections have mistakes
So you can errata while you errata
-
However, that can only be extrapolated by an updated Combat example on p.109 and a statement that "Whips add the attackers Reaction instead of Strength to the Attack Rating". No actual rules text to reflect this change, and multiple places where the previous role (or non-role) of Strenght in melee combat remains the same.
Yo dawg
I heard you like errata
Well now even our corrections have mistakes
So you can errata while you errata
It´s an old meme, but it checks out.
-
Well I might get my hand slapped for this but there are many many things that we (the errata team) submitted that do not show up in the corrected CRB. So ... either that means stuff got rejected or there are still more changes coming. That I don't know.
-
Fortunately I don't know either, so I can compile a public list of houserules without having to worry about violating the NDA. ^_^ Gonna be fun! Been waiting for a while to be able to do so. O_O
-
I am a bit curious- are the missing errata a case of "not approved yet" or "did not fit in the layout"?
And, if the NDA no longer applies, can we get a full list of your "house rules"? :)
-
I know parts of what got submitted for errata, and a tiiiiny bit of discussions on them, but since on those and other items I don't know where it falls under 'not approved yet', 'denied', something else, I am simply discarding all my knowledge of the submissions and making houserules. ^_^ I'll post a first batch once I manage to make time to start using my Shadowland blog again for them.
-
I've started to find some contradictions in different errata sources-
In the German CRB, the price of the Colt M23 (Previously 5,100) changed to 1,500.
In the JAN20 errata, the price changed to 2,100.
I'm guessing there will be other errata that contradicts the GCRB errata- GCRB completely reworked archetypes and a lot of the stats in Wildlife- but which one is official? Is it up to GM preference, or are we going with the English version as the most official CRB, and therefore the last word on rules?
-
Like I mentioned before, evidence suggests Pegasus is just making their own decisions. There's no secret back channel for them that helps them create errata, they make their own judgement calls. Sometimes there seems nothing wrong with those, occasionally they really miss the point and screw up. But when it comes to errata, their decisions do not hold any more value than anything from you and I.
What people do at their tables is fully up to them. Use whatever errata, judgement calls and houserules you desire. But in SRM, I fully expect that only official errata and the SRM FAQ count.
-
Ah, I was under the impression that every change the GCRB team made had to be cleared by CGL- I will try and find a source on that, since it's just something I've heard. Edit: (Sauce (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fforen.pegasus.de%2Fforen%2Ftopic%2F32455-sr6-errata-grundregelwerk-shadowrun-6-1-auflage%2F)- they differentiate between errata requests to CGL that Pegasus has made, and approved errata. They also talk about consulting with CGL before making changes.)
I don't mind if they're given creative latitude, and something that minor isn't going to be a big deal for a group. But if there's a split on something like Unarmed Damage, or Anticipation, there could be contention in international groups.
I guess we can just say that the English one is official because it's the main, and comes direct from CGL (Rather than just being signed off on from CGL), but then what happens if the GCRB fix is "better" than the English fix? I guess it's GM fiat, like you said.
-
Yeah, just make sure all your players know and shit is written down somewhere. There's no Shadowrun rule police and even that lazy smartass wyrm won't come after you for only partially using the GCRB, unless you do something to draw his attention. Speaking of, go Spinrad! 8)
-
We can't be friends anymore, Chandra, I want Loffy to win :(
In all seriousness, as long as SR Missions rules are clear, there's no issues. It's too bad the errata teams couldn't combine efforts, though, even with the language barrier
-
We can't be friends anymore, Chandra, I want Loffy to win :(
To quote a Spinrad spider from a short campaign I played in:
“Go lie on a pile of gold coins and brood, you dinosaur.”
-
Well I might get my hand slapped for this but there are many many things that we (the errata team) submitted that do not show up in the corrected CRB. So ... either that means stuff got rejected or there are still more changes coming. That I don't know.
I find it both vexing and frustrating that they can't be bothered to even communicate with you guys about that. Or post a changelog for that matter.
OB, thanks for taking the time to compile all of this for us. I don't have a copy of the updated book to verify, but if I understand the changes listed correctly, I am most glad to see that IC have had their dice pools reduced to host attack rating instead of the previous rating x2. It was major overkill in our playtest as it was previously. Not terribly excited about anything else, and quite disgruntled that grenades were not addressed and strength has been even further devalued. For me, disappointing but expected.
My petty side is facing the urge to play nothing but grenade chucking Collateral rip-offs in Missions games to spread "necessary grenade change" awareness.
-
Well I might get my hand slapped for this but there are many many things that we (the errata team) submitted that do not show up in the corrected CRB. So ... either that means stuff got rejected or there are still more changes coming. That I don't know.
I find it both vexing and frustrating that they can't be bothered to even communicate with you guys about that. Or post a changelog for that matter.
Jason posted a message on facebook about a changelog:
"We wanted to get the update out along with the GM screen/Cutting Black announcement, but that didn't leave time to get a fully laid out version of the errata. We'll be on that after the holiday weekend!"
OB, thanks for taking the time to compile all of this for us. I don't have a copy of the updated book to verify, but if I understand the changes listed correctly, I am most glad to see that IC have had their dice pools reduced to host attack rating instead of the previous rating x2. It was major overkill in our playtest as it was previously.
I'm not sure if the fan-compiled list you saw got the nuance correct. IC uses Host's Attack Rating for its own Attack Rating. It still rolls Host Rating + Host Rating for its actions.
Unrelated, but since you mentioned hacking being an unfun issue your group's been having: Note that in this edition Hosts don't substitute Host Rating in for Willpower or Intuition when defending against matrix actions; you put in the defending Spider's appropriate mental stat instead. (and if there is no Spider, then those dice pool contributions are 0s- see host hacking example sidebar on pg 178) This is an indirect and rather subtle nerf to Host dice pools, but it's dramatic in consequence.
Not terribly excited about anything else, and quite disgruntled that grenades were not addressed and strength has been even further devalued. For me, disappointing but expected.
My petty side is facing the urge to play nothing but grenade chucking Collateral rip-offs in Missions games to spread "necessary grenade change" awareness.
It's not a matter of Errata or SRM committees being unaware of grenade DVs ;)
-
Cool, glad that isn't being skipped entirely. Thanks for the info SSD.
-
LMAO, I brought my umbrella and there was no rain, again.
Looks like we'll be getting a more efficient changelist after the holidays, according to facebook SSDR literally said that 2 posts ago... oh well...
-
Can anyone talk me through what has happened with adepts?? Just looking through 0B's list of changes (and skimming the rules), as far as I can tell the German rules for adept points and karma (char gen karma does add to adept points) haven't made it in but magic loss is now added at least to both. So as suspected it's a slow start for newbie adepts, it's a nerf from SR5 but not necessarily a bad thing, means you have to think carefully about magic choice (considering the potential longevity of the PC)
(Edited after actually reading it twice ::) )
-
I think initially, there was confusion with what happened to adept power points when they lost essence/magic. It isn't so much a change, so much as it was "change-blindness" between editions.
Since it doesn't seem like GCRB rule changes are going to be in the SR Missions rules (Which may be the "most official"), it's up to you and your group if you adopt these changes. Any change the GCRB makes has at minimum been OKed by CGL. However, that doesn't mean it won't conflict with an english rule, either now or in the future.
Was there something specific you were looking for? It seems like you understand the change alright
-
I am a bit curious- are the missing errata a case of "not approved yet" or "did not fit in the layout"?
When I did a compare PDF process in Adobe Acrobat it was interesting, because it was comparing as images, not as text. So you could see multiple places where it seems like they subtly "squeezed" the font/kerning to make sure that changes would not alter the overall layout (e.g. page numbers in the index). Re-indexing a document like this is probably a substantial piece of work, so I can see why they would do what they could to avoid having to do that.
Its possible that major pieces of errata might never be included in the PDF (only in a separate document), because they would just cause too much disruption to be worth the labor costs. But who knows? I hope we find out soon, I eagerly await the separate document.
-
Re-indexing a document like this is probably a substantial piece of work, so I can see why they would do what they could to avoid having to do that.
And it breaks every other book that has “see CRB page xx” text, too. Which I think there is already some for 6e, even though it’s new.
-
Errata has to not alter the layout. Exactly for that reason.
It's rather often a game of trying to make errata shaped like a square peg somehow fit into a round hole in the original text. A smaller hole, rather often.
If you ever scratch your head about "why was the errata worded so confusingly" or "why wasn't that fixed? It's SO obvious it needs a fix!"... sometimes this is why.
-
Errata has to not alter the layout. Exactly for that reason.
I hadn't thought of page numbers in other books, but obviously that is an important thing.
There is an interesting example of this on page 53 of the new PDF, where compare PDF shows that the layout person subtly shrunk the line spacing between the lines on the right hand column so all the stuff would still fit on that page. I can't see it at all with my naked eye, but the thumbnail image Acrobat creates to show the difference makes it obvious.
Say what you want about the rules themselves, but much respect to Matt Heerdt (layout) and the art directors Brent Evans and James Mosingo. The book really does look great; easy to read text with clear headings, sidebars, etc. I find the border graphics a bit busy, but overall the impression is very good, and I love that purple color. They did a bang up job, I think.
When that second errata file hit his desk, there must have been places where Matt Heerdt was like "Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you want me to squeeze WHAT into that column?!" :-) I don't envy his job.
-
Say what you want about the rules themselves, but much respect to Matt Heerdt (layout) and the art directors Brent Evans and James Mosingo. The book really does look great; easy to read text with clear headings, sidebars, etc. I find the border graphics a bit busy, but overall the impression is very good, and I love that purple color. They did a bang up job, I think.
Agreed, I also find the 6e typesetting and design faster to navigate than the 5e style. Even though the 6e layout is slightly denser, I think (that Neo-A book that was re-printed for 6e lost a few pages in the transition, IIRC.)
-
The new typesetting and design (especially the table design) cut No Future page count by about 16 pages. In the reprint, they filled the pages with The Johnson Run fiction preview.
-
The new typesetting and design (especially the table design) cut No Future page count by about 16 pages.
That’s the one! Thanks. I totally blanked on the name there.
-
Errata has to not alter the layout. Exactly for that reason.
I hadn't thought of page numbers in other books, but obviously that is an important thing.
There is an interesting example of this on page 53 of the new PDF, where compare PDF shows that the layout person subtly shrunk the line spacing between the lines on the right hand column so all the stuff would still fit on that page. I can't see it at all with my naked eye, but the thumbnail image Acrobat creates to show the difference makes it obvious.
Say what you want about the rules themselves, but much respect to Matt Heerdt (layout) and the art directors Brent Evans and James Mosingo. The book really does look great; easy to read text with clear headings, sidebars, etc. I find the border graphics a bit busy, but overall the impression is very good, and I love that purple color. They did a bang up job, I think.
When that second errata file hit his desk, there must have been places where Matt Heerdt was like "Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you want me to squeeze WHAT into that column?!" :-) I don't envy his job.
I can sympathize with this because I have actually done it. Editing a large book like the CRB is problematic at best. Even with a great tool like Indesign and everything you can do with it re organizing a major work like the CRB is a massive undertaking and maddening to boot.
-
I can sympathize with this because I have actually done it. Editing a large book like the CRB is problematic at best. Even with a great tool like Indesign and everything you can do with it re organizing a major work like the CRB is a massive undertaking and maddening to boot.
All the more puzzling, then, that the CRB was let out the door in a state where, within mere hours, all the online Shadowrun forums had numerous examples of (a) unresolvable ambiguities and gaps and (b) exploitable rules (eg. Anticipate, spirit's hardened armour, that quality that grants Edge on Logic tests, etc etc)
-
When I first heard about all of the things that were wrong with the book I was skeptical. I didn't think that a company owning a property as popular as this one could get away with releasing something that folks claimed was so broken. I still don't think it is broken per say but it took me playing through a few combats, including all of the various permutations, before I could see what people were talking about. To really fix this book would not require a complete re-write but it would require significant reformatting.
Earlier I said that it would be a major pain in the tail to do that. With that said that pain would only exist for a few days, maybe a week, if doing it along with other things. A really dedicated person could do it in a single day if that is all they focused on and they had all of the issues and locations for those issues in the pdf laid out in front of them. That is just edits, if they had to re-think systems and playtest those revisions it would of course take longer.
-
The fundamental assumption of AR v DR doesn’t hold up, why have a system where pretty much all it does is nothing? Even the majority of CRB examples include AR V DR doing nothing. Fixing that is going to require a broad spectrum of changes as it touch’s a lot of things.
They have already issued a lot of errata and have LOT more to go. Re-writing the CRB is what’s needed. Even things as simple as codes of honor are so vague as to be meaningless. Then other side you have major over reactions, off handed weapon attacks the addiction rules, far to many things then totally negate the edge system.
The edge system as whole need meaningful overhaul and months of play testing to hit some kind or reasonable standard of playability.
-
The fundamental assumption of AR v DR doesn’t hold up, why have a system where pretty much all it does is nothing? Even the majority of CRB examples include AR V DR doing nothing. Fixing that is going to require a broad spectrum of changes as it touch’s a lot of things.
They have already issued a lot of errata and have LOT more to go. Re-writing the CRB is what’s needed. Even things as simple as codes of honor are so vague as to be meaningless. Then other side you have major over reactions, off handed weapon attacks the addiction rules, far to many things then totally negate the edge system.
The edge system as whole need meaningful overhaul and months of play testing to hit some kind or reasonable standard of playability.
So, still not a good time to change to 6th edition then huh? Especially when things are running smoothly (for us) in 5th edition. (we usually wait until the first round of supplemental books come out anyways)
-
Eh, SR5 played fine even though there's tons of errata waiting for it, and I doubt people will receive the rule rewrites they demand, especially not when they're basically complaining GMs get more leeway to properly agree with the players how they want to play things. So they will never be satisfied.
Mind you, I'm going to write a bunch of houserules though. But SR6 is less broken than SR5 was, most houserules will simply be 'I prefer it altered'. Not gonna write 22 blog posts with houserules this time (unlike SR5. Yes, I counted them.)
Now I do agree that I am waiting for Firing Squad to hit before I'm starting up a full campaign. =) I didn't switch from SR4 to SR5 until Street Grimoire.
-
The fundamental assumption of AR v DR doesn’t hold up, why have a system where pretty much all it does is nothing? Even the majority of CRB examples include AR V DR doing nothing. Fixing that is going to require a broad spectrum of changes as it touch’s a lot of things.
They have already issued a lot of errata and have LOT more to go. Re-writing the CRB is what’s needed. Even things as simple as codes of honor are so vague as to be meaningless. Then other side you have major over reactions, off handed weapon attacks the addiction rules, far to many things then totally negate the edge system.
The edge system as whole need meaningful overhaul and months of play testing to hit some kind or reasonable standard of playability.
So, still not a good time to change to 6th edition then huh? Especially when things are running smoothly (for us) in 5th edition. (we usually wait until the first round of supplemental books come out anyways)
They aren't gonna fix 6e. As with TM for most of 5e they fool themselves into believing that nonsense in the CRB works. When sighted directly they follow Chandra example and hide behind the idea you should just house rule to fix it. After all why would we ever want a working system? Just make the GM fix it. 5e is functional so stick with it. Maybe a couple years priorities will change and SR will get the same attention Mech is getting now. Looks like the next couple missions seasons will be dual stated so that's something.
-
Lol, Not saying 5e was perfect.. noty by a long stretch.
And, house rules are a staple of my table for every game system ever. (I know my players, I know what interests them, and what bores them. Encumbrance Rules from DnD for example... axed those right out the window...) So nothing new there for SR 5e either. And I expect to use house rules for 6e as well...
As long as I can figure out the intent behind something, I can usually figure out if we "need it" or should "change it" or just "avoid it".... But from some readings of postings, it sounds like the intent has been obscured in some rules... But that could also just be "new edition syndrome" talking.
(every time any game undergoes a change, there is always a group that vocally oppose it.) <Sometimes with good reason!>
-
One of my houserule sets definitely will be around chargen, where you get two options: Explicitly double down on the restrictions to Magic Priority's side effects, or ease up and boost several Priorities.
-
I've been running Shadowrun since 1st edition. You people make me hate this game. You and Catalyst. So long to your pile of shit. I'm never running this game ever again.
-
I've been running Shadowrun since 1st edition. You people make me hate this game. You and Catalyst. So long to your pile of shit. I'm never running this game ever again.
So much anger. So misplaced. 1st and 2nd editions seemed less broken because you had less to compare it to. This is a new thing. So ok, you don't like it. Good for you. You can still play all the older versions of the game and nobody is going to show up at your door to confiscate them.
The real question is the usefulness of this kind of post. Posted or not posted, our response would be the same...only now you have left this post on my doorstep, flaming, like a spoiled child having a tantrum.
-
I've been running Shadowrun since 1st edition. You people make me hate this game. You and Catalyst. So long to your pile of shit. I'm never running this game ever again.
So much anger. So misplaced. 1st and 2nd editions seemed less broken because you had less to compare it to. This is a new thing. So ok, you don't like it. Good for you. You can still play all the older versions of the game and nobody is going to show up at your door to confiscate them.
The real question is the usefulness of this kind of post. Posted or not posted, our response would be the same...only now you have left this post on my doorstep, flaming, like a spoiled child having a tantrum.
Its the typical "You pissed in my Corn flakes!/Killed my Sacred Cow!!" response that massive changes to a loved Genre/Game/Movie/Book can invoke. Especially when said changes are not what one expected....
And is also a typical Twitter post By the By :P
You'll find them in everything that comes out with a fan base... *Cough* Star WAS *Cough*
Sometimes, that type of post is the most succinct, direct expression of how someone feels...
(Note, I still don't have 6we... Have not even looked at it, so I have no actual comment on 6we quality at this time. But, boy oh boy have I felt that exact way about some things Hollywood has done of late, and if rumors are true, want to continue to do..)
-
I've been running Shadowrun since 1st edition. You people make me hate this game. You and Catalyst. So long to your pile of shit. I'm never running this game ever again.
While I get not liking the current edition, I take it you still have all those older editions still? If so, use the ideas (or not) from 6th edition (like the new Cutting Black book) and keep using those older systems. Heck, use the adventures as well (like the upcoming Toronto campaign), and just spend a bit more time on them by switching out stats/gear for things available in the older system. /shrug
-
No one asked for my opinion, but I'm just gonna throw it out there =]
I'm new to 6th edition, haven't ran or played it, but I look forward to both. I've played 2nd and 4th editions religiously , spanning over two decades of experience. If I had no prior knowledge of the system/setting and 6e was my first foray into the Sixth World, I'd have taken my book back to my FLGS and asked for store credit.
It's not an issue of disliking certain game mechanics, it's an issue of incompleteness and inconsistency. You can't make assumptions on how a vaguely written rule works if the examples pertaining to the rule are contradictory. I know from having played previous editions that starting Essence is 6, that's been a "sacred cow" from the beginning. But nowhere in character creation is this stated. Rules pertaining to Burnout and Essence loss affecting Spell/PP are also omitted. I keep reading about an errata that changes unarmed DV from (Str/2, round up)S which isn't explicitly stated in the CRB to a static 2S, which isn't even found in the errata list. The crunch for Laser Sight says that the AR boost is already factored into the weapons block for firearms with the integrated accessory, but neither does it or the crunch for other weapon accessories state if they have or have not. Which leads one to have to guess if a weapon already has the AR boost factored in for it's integrated Smartlink and Gas vent system, or if it's added on during Step 2 of combat resolution. Due to the information presented (or lack thereof) in the weapons/accessories write-ups, there is no satisfactory definitive answer. I could go on, but I feel my point has been made.
I understand having to leave some content on the editing room floor for the sake of page count, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The aforementioned omissions are very important to the system for it to work properly and should have been treated as such. Love it, like it, or hate it, SR6 is a subpar product at it's core which should never have been released in it's current state. Without a significant overhaul of the material which may as well be an entirely new printing, no amount of after-market errata is going to change that.
"Just House Rule it" you say? That's fine by me, but first you need rules you want to change in order to do that.
"Rule X has an effect on Rule Y, but since we don't really like Rule X and we rarely use it anyway, but we like Rule Y and we use it every session, let's just remove Rule X this session for ease of bookkeeping and as long as it doesn't negatively impact our fun and/or game balance, we'll just get rid if Rule X altogether for future game sessions. Deal?" That's a House Rule. Completely fabricating a rule set to play a game because the CRB doesn't have them is not. My role in the producer/consumer relationship is to pay for the developer's product, not to do their job for them =]
FWIW, this isn't an attack on the Dev Team. If it comes off that way, it's not meant to be. It's difficult to judge meaning and intent from the written word, and as I'm proofreading my post even I have to admit it's coming off a bit dickhead-ish =] But please believe me when I say that sincerely that is not the case. I'm merely stating my observational opinion because I love Shadowrun, and while my individual opinion may not matter, it's clear that my opinion is also shared by the vocal majority. My loyalty is to the brand, not the company that has the license to it. And that company dropped the ball on this one. Assuming the product's profit margin even warrants a second printing with complete and consistent errata, I shouldn't have to pay for a brand new CRB because the first one was garbage. I will, because it's Shadowrun, and I want the license holder to produce more Shadowrun products for my enjoyment. I won't presume to speak for others, but I'm confident a decent percentage of the consumer base will do the same as well. But if even a percentage of the company's profit is based on the consumer bailing you out to give you a second chance based on brand recognition rather than product quality, the company might want to reevaluate who's getting paid to do what and why they're still being paid for not doing it.
EDIT: spelling
-
The fundamental assumption of AR v DR doesn’t hold up, why have a system where pretty much all it does is nothing? Even the majority of CRB examples include AR V DR doing nothing. Fixing that is going to require a broad spectrum of changes as it touch’s a lot of things.
I like the concept of AR vs DR for the medium-crunch system I think they're trying to make, but they messed up in two ways. One, you mentioned, it doesn't matter. Most of the time AR/DR is in the +-4 range, and when it's outside that, the award is edge, which doesn't matter enough for modeling armor. The second is that it has no clear metaphor. They treated AR like a rug to sweep all the little gun stuff under. It's simultaneously armor penetration and accuracy. So we're left in a place where APDS and Flechette ammo are almost mechanically identical.
They have already issued a lot of errata and have LOT more to go. Re-writing the CRB is what’s needed.
It really is. If they don't have a technical writer, maybe they should consider one. There's so much ambiguity and inconsistency that needs to be cleaned up.
-
For those who say 'AR vs DR usually doesn't matter', I remind you of the mods to increase AR, the firing modes which sacrifice AR, and Cover which impacts both evasive pool and DR, plus it no longer penalizes you by causing a hit on a tie, since ties always hit now. Once you start adding Cover into the equation, those AR/DR comparisons will definitely change.
Another thing to remember is that armor mods are now exhaustive. This makes the capacity extra important.
I can imagine people saying 'I want armor to do more', even though I'm fine with the damage rebalancing, but armor definitely still has impact now.
-
The fundamental assumption of AR v DR doesn’t hold up, why have a system where pretty much all it does is nothing? Even the majority of CRB examples include AR V DR doing nothing. Fixing that is going to require a broad spectrum of changes as it touch’s a lot of things.
I like the concept of AR vs DR for the medium-crunch system I think they're trying to make, but they messed up in two ways. One, you mentioned, it doesn't matter. Most of the time AR/DR is in the +-4 range, and when it's outside that, the award is edge, which doesn't matter enough for modeling armor. The second is that it has no clear metaphor. They treated AR like a rug to sweep all the little gun stuff under. It's simultaneously armor penetration and accuracy. So we're left in a place where APDS and Flechette ammo are almost mechanically identical.
They have already issued a lot of errata and have LOT more to go. Re-writing the CRB is what’s needed.
It really is. If they don't have a technical writer, maybe they should consider one. There's so much ambiguity and inconsistency that needs to be cleaned up.
I agree with this, Ming. From the (admittedly little) testing I've done with AR vs DR in combat scenarios, it seems that the system is moot. Regardless of cover, smartlinks, ammo, or Minor Action buffs, the +/- 4 threshhold really doesn't matter. You either hit or you miss, with the Secondary Effects (and the armor Mods used to negate them) being a far more important factor. Personally, I like high-lethality combat in SR, but with armor playing little to no role in defense it seems the Edge gain is just a pointless concession.
As for re-writes, I certainly hope that happens. I've read posts from one of the developers stating his intent for certain rules (which totally make sense and would be a much better alternative to what we have to work with now) that were disregarded and either replaced with poorly edited copypasta from previous editions or just outright nonsense. You can't expect to compartmentalize a working rule set by not playtesting it and/or giving editorial powers to a single person.
-
I consider SR6 far less lethal than SR5 myself. And so far players at open events love gathering Edge to then use it or pass it on at crucial points. So my anecdotal evidence disagrees with your testing I fear.
-
Since I had some spare time, I decided to map out a scenario for 'default' combat: Facing 5 SWAT members with Predators.
Let's look at an Ares Predator with APDS: 8+(1+)P/-5, with 1 net hit for all following averages.
F: Face at a party: Let's say 16 soak dice (Body 3, max armor tricks for 13, no armor/soak augmentations).
S: Augmented char: Let's say 23 soak dice (Body 3, Armor 12, BDA4, OS4 = how my char was built once).
T: Tank: Let's say 38 soak dice (B6, A24, +8 from augmentations).
F: Average 5.33 damage, 47.26% chance at 6+ damage, 0.14% chance at 0 damage.
S: Average 3.06 damage, 10.17% chance at 6+ damage, 10.76% chance at 0 damage.
T: Average 0.34 damage, 0.13% chance at 6+ damage, 82.12% chance at 0 damage.
SR6, Ares Predator with Explosive Ammo = 4+(0+)P damage, let's still assume 1 net hit (even though a tie also hits) for 5P.
F: 3 soak dice
S: 7 soak dice
T: 10 soak dice
F: Average 4 damage, 29.63% chance at 5 damage, 0 chance at 0 damage.
S: Average 2.67 damage, 5.85% chance at 5 damage, 4.53% chance at 0 damage.
T: Average 1.77 damage, 1.73% chance at 5 damage, 21.31% chance at 0 damage.
Everyone except for the superheavy-armour people went down average damage-wise.
Now let's look at how we'd handle 5 grunts firing at you:
SR5: Attack at -0, -1, -2, -3, -4 defense dice. Need 1 net hit to hit.
SR6: Attack at +2 attack dice. Needs to at least tie to hit.
If we assume you face Organized Crime, they have 10 offense dice in SR5, 6 in SR6. Let's assume in SR5, you'd give SWAT the same stats, in SR6 they're their own PR so they have 7 offense dice, and 5 grunts combined adds 2 dice.
Let's look at defense pools Low: 6, Decent: 10, High: 15, and see what the chances to get hit are (we're ignoring damage numbers for now, since to run the full math would be more a nightmare). Remember that in SR6, ties hit:
SR5 L: 10 vs 6/5/4/3/2 = average hitchance 398.13%, aka 79,63% per attack.
SR5 M: 10 vs 10/9/8/7/6 = average hitchance 267.33%, aka 53.47% per attack.
SR5 H: 10 vs 15/14/13/12/11 = average hitchance 184.89%, aka 36.98% per attack.
SR6 L: 9 vs 6 = average 79.44% hitchance
SR6 M: 9 vs 6 = average 53.29% hitchance
SR6 H: 9 vs 6 = average 25.90% hitchance
So damage numbers from highest-damage Ares Predator are down for everyone except the tank, variation is less so less 'bam you're down' odds, and you only face 1 attack so you face roughly the same average hit chance but only 1 attack instead of 5 in SR6. In other words, if you face a large group of grunts, survival rates against focused fire are much better in SR6 than in SR5.
In SR5 we could add partial cover (+2 dice but ties hit) and Full Defense (depending on qualities +4~+9), in SR6 we can add cover II (+2 dice, ties already hit) and an evade action (depends on your Athletics skill, so 6 an option for specialized chars), but by then you're also going to be facing higher pools eventually so I'm not going to bother mapping that out.
Furthermore, we could include burst fire (wide bursts ruin defense pools in SR5, no such mechanic in SR6 yet), or bring out the Ares Alphas (3.33 damage extra if we ignore full-soaks scenarios, vs 1 damage extra) and Barretts (+5.67 damage vs +2 damage), which were basically 'how do we hurt the tank' solutions that ended up having a good chance at one-shotting any non-combat-heavy char.
All said and done, I think SR6's solution of cutting out armor and reducing damage numbers, is in fact a less-lethal system. The reliance on net hits is much bigger too, due to far less variation on the soak results. And any kind of large group will be far less lethal due to the grunt combined-attack rules.
I understand some people want armor to have more impact, but I wouldn't throw that into the soak rolls, exactly because the current balance means you can have a non-optimal character actually survive a few rounds of combat now. Me, I'd start employing armor boost on resisting any contact toxins instead (after halving Toxins, since Toxins/Hardened/Grenades got missed in the lethality nerf).
Anecdotal: In SR5 I had some crooks with Alphas focus fire on a Troll who wasn't a Tank but a scrawny 'I 2-hit a Roadmaster' instead, all three attacks hit him and he went unconscious on the third. In SR6, he'd only have taken the one attack and still have stood as a result. Nevermind that keeping more defense dice might have helped him evade, and lower damage numbers also would have helped his defense odds, so even attacking 3x instead of 1 grunt attack would have improved his odds.
-
In SR5 I had some crooks with Alphas focus fire on a Troll who wasn't a Tank but a scrawny 'I 2-hit a Roadmaster' instead, all three attacks hit him and he went unconscious on the third. In SR6, he'd only have taken the one attack and still have stood as a result.
Your entire argument rests on the grunt mechanics in 6e. If you re-run your numbers without using them you’ll have a very different conclusion. Hence, I conclude the decision to apply - or not apply - the grunt mechanic is crucial to determining lethality of an encounter.
How, then, do you square that with RAW, which says: To speed up combat a little, we recommend that grunts attack as a group or groups rather than as a series of individuals. This saves on dice rolls while also showing the greater chance of success with a group working together. The gamemaster chooses the size of the grunt groups, usually grouping them by who they're attacking and/or type of attack. If four Lone Star troopers have clubs out and two have drawn their guns, the four club wielders work together, while the pistol packers pair up on the perp of their choice.
There is no advice here that grunts are important for balance. It is presented as a pure speed up option, for GMs to apply or not, according to their desire for this particular combat.
I think the way the grunt rules are presented, it’s a perfectly valid choice for a GM to not apply them to, say, a two-NPCs-versus-one-PC encounter. But if they do so, your “SR6 is less lethal” conclusion no longer holds.
-
Honestly, the one thing I don't get is 'why'? Why the devs thought that armor not adding to soak and Str not contributing to damage were a good idea? It's not like these things would have added a lot of complexity, or bogged down the game. All it needs is just a re-calculation of the DVs.
I can understand if the intent was really making the whole thing about AR/DR and Edge and getting rid of floating modifiers (though I don't really think the end result is much less complex, or easier on newcomers, who need to memorize all the Edge effects and action, though yes, it's less math-heavy), but then, why make the impact so minor as getting only 1 edge?
It just doesn't make sense, what was the intent behind all of this. It could be a working system, with all the initial premises and core concepts, but without these illogical choices.
-
"Why doesn't armor add to soak?" is a question that lots of people ask. I ask, "Why does it have to?"
Armor in 5e/4e did indeed add to soak pools. The past 2 editions probably cover many contemporary Shadowrun fans' experience with the TTRPG, and for those who've played longer well the past 15 years or so are fresher in our minds than the 15 years that preceded them.
But in 2e/3e, armor very much did NOT add to soak pools. And this is relevant, because 3e is (in my anecdotal experience trawling the Shadowrun fan sites on the interwebz) commonly cited as being one of the "Best" editions of Shadowrun, ever.
Back where it all started, in 1e armor didn't technically add to soak pools, but it did add its rating as automatic successes ON the soak pool... so I can't really fairly say armor didn't "add to soak pools" in 1e. OTOH, and this is important, back in 1st thru 3rd editions you didn't reduce damage with successes in the soak pool on a 1 for 1 basis. In 1e, it could take as many as 3 or 4 successes to reduce damage (it was a static 'staging' of 2 in 2nd and 3rd ed). Also bear in mind that 1st edition was supplanted by 2nd edition in very short order... this state where armor added automatic successes to the soak pool is almost a footnote in Shadowrun's history.
TL;DR: History lesson on Armor in Shadowrun's various editions: 1st, 4th, 5th: Armor contributed to the soak pool. 2nd, 3rd, and yes 6th: It does not contribute to the soak pool. Moral: You don't NEED to have armor contribute to the soak pool in order for Shadowrun to "make sense" or "be good".
-
Come on, now, SSDR, you know that's kind of a disingenuous thing to say. You know the complaint about 6e armor is that it doesn't directly contribute to damage resistance, and you're making it sound like 2e and 3e were the same, when they most definitely were not. Your armor value directly--directly--reduced your target number to resist damage. It would be fairly difficult to get more than a scratch from a hold-out pistol in a reasonable amount of armor, for example. The only thing I can think of that circumvented that completely is (some) spells. This is not the same thing as adding dice to a resistance test, but it is essentially a form of "soak", i.e. damage resistance, that is objective and reliable.
-
"Why doesn't armor add to soak?" is a question that lots of people ask. I ask, "Why does it have to?"
Armor in 5e/4e did indeed add to soak pools. The past 2 editions probably cover many contemporary Shadowrun fans' experience with the TTRPG, and for those who've played longer well the past 15 years or so are fresher in our minds than the 15 years that preceded them.
But in 2e/3e, armor very much did NOT add to soak pools. And this is relevant, because 3e is (in my anecdotal experience trawling the Shadowrun fan sites on the interwebz) commonly cited as being one of the "Best" editions of Shadowrun, ever.
Back where it all started, in 1e armor didn't technically add to soak pools, but it did add its rating as automatic successes ON the soak pool... so I can't really fairly say armor didn't "add to soak pools" in 1e. OTOH, and this is important, back in 1st thru 3rd editions you didn't reduce damage with successes in the soak pool on a 1 for 1 basis. In 1e, it could take as many as 3 or 4 successes to reduce damage (it was a static 'staging' of 2 in 2nd and 3rd ed). Also bear in mind that 1st edition was supplanted by 2nd edition in very short order... this state where armor added automatic successes to the soak pool is almost a footnote in Shadowrun's history.
TL;DR: History lesson on Armor in Shadowrun's various editions: 1st, 4th, 5th: Armor contributed to the soak pool. 2nd, 3rd, and yes 6th: It does not contribute to the soak pool. Moral: You don't NEED to have armor contribute to the soak pool in order for Shadowrun to "make sense" or "be good".
It's important to note that while 3E did not add armor to soak it did reduce the power of the attack by the armor rating ... so armor did very much play a part in damage mitigation.
However... you can extend that very principle to 6E by realizing that all damage values were lowered to offset the lower soak pools ... in essence this means that all armor has a "built in" damage reduction that is equal across the board. The only place this breaks down is unarmored targets ... but for small price of unarmed targets gaining benefits it's not a bad design choice.
-
Come on, now, SSDR, you know that's kind of a disingenuous thing to say. You know the complaint about 6e armor is that it doesn't directly contribute to damage resistance, and you're making it sound like 2e and 3e were the same, when they most definitely were not. Your armor value directly--directly--reduced your target number to resist damage. It would be fairly difficult to get more than a scratch from a hold-out pistol in a reasonable amount of armor, for example. The only thing I can think of that circumvented that completely is (some) spells. This is not the same thing as adding dice to a resistance test, but it is essentially a form of "soak", i.e. damage resistance, that is objective and reliable.
The point is armor can help without adding to a soak pool. Do we disagree that in 2e/3e armor helped without adding to a soak pool? I hope not.
Whether 6we's version of armor helps enough is opinion. Granted, an opinion that lots of people say is "No". I'm not talking about opinion in this train of discussion... it's not opinion that armor's mechanical impact is less than it was in 4e/5e. It's opinion as to whether or not that's a "good thing", and people who disagree about that opinion won't change each others' minds.
So that's all beside the point. I was addressing "Why doesn't armor add to soak in 6e?". I was saying "armor doesn't HAVE to." And that "It didn't help with soak for a very large swath of Shadowrun's history, as a matter of fact."
It's important to note that while 3E did not add armor to soak it did reduce the power of the attack by the armor rating ... so armor did very much play a part in damage mitigation.
This is of course the answer to "Well, why can't we just have armor work like 2e/3e in 6we?" Target Numbers for successes have in effect all been pegged at "5" ever since 4e, and 6we didn't undo that. So while armor doesn't necessarily have to give you bonus dice to soak with, we still can't have it lower the number you need on each die to score a hit.
Another key factor, btw, is 2e/3e had the concept of a Combat Pool which could be allocated towards soak. 6we's Edge works like a reimaged Combat Pool. So there IS that callback to Shadowrun's earlier eras since what armor does is either give you edge, or at least deny it to your attacker.
-
Come on, now, SSDR, you know that's kind of a disingenuous thing to say. You know the complaint about 6e armor is that it doesn't directly contribute to damage resistance, and you're making it sound like 2e and 3e were the same, when they most definitely were not. Your armor value directly--directly--reduced your target number to resist damage. It would be fairly difficult to get more than a scratch from a hold-out pistol in a reasonable amount of armor, for example. The only thing I can think of that circumvented that completely is (some) spells. This is not the same thing as adding dice to a resistance test, but it is essentially a form of "soak", i.e. damage resistance, that is objective and reliable.
Yes that, thank you. I'm familiar with 3e, since I'm started with that, because that was what was available in Hungarian and known by everyone except me (SR alluded my somehow until 5-ish years before) in the group. So I learned that first and then 5e.
I'd agree, what the point is: armor had a direct and meaningfull role and impact, much more than the (maybe) 1 edge it gives now. Same with Str and damage. I just don't get the reasons behind these choices. They aren't making the game faster or more fluid, really and they're just counterintuitive.
Honestly, I'd even tinker with the edge system, as gaining a meta-currency for something, not besides, but in place of situational modifiers and spending them on something else 3 rounds later is a tad too gameist for my tastes. But I could see the basis working fine, with some modifications. Regardless, the pet peeve problems, like armor and str in melee doesn't even need a redesign of the system like that, just a slight recalculation of the numbers, so again, I just don't get why they went with these versions. They must have been aware that these things will catch the eye of many people and that they don't add much, but takes away quite much from the immersion-via-perceived-realism side.
-
Whether 6we's version of armor helps enough is opinion. Granted, an opinion that lots of people say is "No". I'm not talking about opinion in this train of discussion... it's not opinion that armor's mechanical impact is less than it was in 4e/5e. It's opinion as to whether or not that's a "good thing", and people who disagree about that opinion won't change each others' minds.
I just want to react to this and ask back: why it is a good thing? What does armor having as littla impact as this adds to the game? I can get the argument that some people hate tank characters and that armor was maybe too good in earlier editions. Still, it went so far to the other end of the spectrum, that it's specifically immersion-breaking for me, how little it impacts the damage you're getting. Why would anyone wear armor like that? Same with the Str thing, it's just doesn't make sense.
Armor could work like in D&D and make it harder for a hit to land, or it could work by adding to soak and making it harder for a landed hit to hurt you. Each is fine, though I prefer the second, because that's how armor work IRL. Still, this is not the question. The question is "how effective armor is"? You could argue that that is only an oppinion, but it's an oppinion of many, 'because' it's counterintuitive that it's effectieness and contribution is so low. I think there could be avenues to make it better, even with changing very little of the rules, but as it stands, it just doesn1t have enough of an effect and that makes the game's world less believable.
-
"Why doesn't armor add to soak?" is a question that lots of people ask.
No, it isn't. For example, here is how I put it:
One of my players bought SR6. Last night we tried a little mini-session, starting with Nigel Nutbiter the dwarven samurai against two PR3 Lone Star beat cops.
First combat turn:
1. NN puts a single round into Goon1 with his FN-HAL. Gets an Edge because the gun overwhelms Goon1's armour vest. Goon1 takes 4P damage.
2. Goon2 shoots NN with his light pistol. NN gets an Edge because his armour is much better than Goon2's shitty pistol. Goon2 still tags him, though, for 3P damage.
3. Goon1 shoots at NN. NN gets no Edge. He already has his two for this Combat Round. His armour just doesn't do anything.
...
If it had been dark, then NN's vision mods would have given him a second point of Edge at step (1), and his armour would have had no bearing on the subsequent combat.
...
One of the points of Edge that Nigel used in step 4 to mow the goons down he earned in defence at step 2. NN's armour made a difference when one goon shot at him, but not when the second goon did.
(emphasis added)
I didn't suggest "armour should add to soak." I said "armour should do something." Significant difference.
I am not unusual (at least in this.) Most people I have seen discussing this issue frame it the same way.
Furthermore, as has already been pointed out to you, armour has a significant bearing on damage resolution in 1e, as it does in 2e through 5e. The mechanism by which is has that effect varies, but it always has an effect.
Never has any previous edition had the scenario where, when getting shot twice in the same turn, armour has a different effect across the two damage resolutions.
Never has any previous edition had any scenario where armour doesn't effect damage resolution.
6e is unique in both aspects.
-
Whether 6we's version of armor helps enough is opinion. Granted, an opinion that lots of people say is "No". I'm not talking about opinion in this train of discussion... it's not opinion that armor's mechanical impact is less than it was in 4e/5e. It's opinion as to whether or not that's a "good thing", and people who disagree about that opinion won't change each others' minds.
...
I just want to react to this and ask back: why it is a good thing? What does armor having as littla impact as this adds to the game?
Well, like elbows, everyone has opinions. I'm not trying to tell anyone else that their opinion is wrong, I'm just elaborating on mine since it was specifically asked for:
Yes, there's a bit of the "4e and 5e were overboard, so I'd rather have an overcorrection against it than to allow it to perpetuate!". But there's also 2) I like that armor doesn't replace using realistic-ish tactics like taking cover (as much as Shadowrun's cinematic style of "realism" goes, at any rate), 3) truly "tanking" requires more thought/development than just slapping armor on, and 4) it revolves around Edge, and the way Edge works in 6we is not THAT dissimilar from Combat Pool in those earlier editions.
Sure, there are some real issues with hitting the edge gain cap, but even when that happens denying a point of edge is in the end more or less the same thing (2 in 3 chance) as reducing the damage you would have taken by 1 box. That 2 in 3 chance of preventing a bonus net hit can even mean the difference between being hit or missed entirely. And when weapon DVs are scaled the way they are now, even preventing 1 extra box means a fairly substantial % of the damage being shaved off compared to someone who was wearing a bikini. And, another history lesson: 6we's gun DVs are on par with what they were in 1e, 2e, 3e, AND 4e. 5e is the lone aberration in SR's history where guns start out filling your CM with base DVs...
There are games where combat is deadly and if you get hit, you're basically toast. And that's fine. But there are also games where there's a flow of degrees of being wounded, and lots of people like those (D&D's hit points go up and down fairly fluidly during play, for example. And let's not pretend D&D isn't the gorilla in the RPG house...) In 6we damage tends to go away much more easily. Ergo, the damage has to come fairly easily as well, or else there's no point in having an easier time getting rid of it. If, basically, every time you get shot you take a handful of boxes of damage, even while wearing armor, it makes Shadowrun have that kind of back and forth with getting wounded and getting healed.
...Never has any previous edition had any scenario where armour doesn't effect damage resolution.
6e is unique in both aspects.
And while that's technically true, because 6we armor only indirectly affects damage resolution.... it's still opinion as to whether that's a bug or a feature. You and I certainly view this particular thing through two different lenses. Would I *prefer* to see edge not capped at 2/round? Yes. But, that's not what the rule is, and even as-is 1) there's no cap on the number of times armor can negate Edge and thereby mitigate some damage, 2) although armor is indirectly linked to Edge, potential problems with Edge are fundamentally problems with Edge, not armor.
-
the way Edge works in 6we is not THAT dissimilar from Combat Pool in those earlier editions.
...this is just not a true statement, man. A much more accurate way of saying this is that Edge and Combat Pool have almost nothing in common. One is a purchased statistic, one is derived. One respawned in full every combat turn, one has to be earned back incrementally.
Combat Pool's only function was to add dice to your combat related tests. Edge is not restricted to combat skills, or even your own dice. Edge can even cause typical game mechanics to function differently.
Edge is a translation of Karma Pool into a statistic, not Combat Pool.
denying a point of edge is in the end more or less the same thing (2 in 3 chance) as reducing the damage you would have taken by 1 box.
I have not read 6e, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that edge had a variety of uses (maneuvers and whatnot), not just re-rolling dice. If so, you can't possibly equate these two things as the same, because there is no way of knowing how that edge would be used.
6we's gun DVs are on par with what they were in 1e, 2e, 3e, AND 4e
This is another deceptive statement, because it completely ignores the concept of staging damage up and the differences in condition monitors. The base damage for an Ares Predator may have been 3 boxes (M damage level) in 2e and 3e, but with 2 net successes that was up to 6 and 4 net successes that was up to 10. Percentage-wise, that was 30%, 60%, and 100% of your condition monitor no matter who you are. As I understand it, the least number of boxes on a condition monitor in 6e is 9, and going up to whatever a troll can get to. 4 net hits would get that Ares Predator up to 7 boxes of damage, right? Unless I'm missing something, that's a world of difference. That can't even take out the sickliest person in the world. Not only that, but the wound modifiers you inflicted in 2e and 3e scaled more quickly as well. Comparing base DV in a vacuum is not an honest way to assess if gun damage is on par with previous editions.
-
I have not read 6e, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that edge had a variety of uses (maneuvers and whatnot), not just re-rolling dice. If so, you can't possibly equate these two things as the same, because there is no way of knowing how that edge would be used.
You are correct.
-
I have not read 6e, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that edge had a variety of uses (maneuvers and whatnot), not just re-rolling dice. If so, you can't possibly equate these two things as the same, because there is no way of knowing how that edge would be used.
You are correct.
But you can, imo, fairly presume that any edge you denied to your opponent is edge that would have been used against you, had you not been wearing armor. And whatever use that was (negating one of your hits, that edge filling out the cost for an edge action like shank, etc), it not happening because you wore armor is a GOOD thing. It's an indirect benefit rather than a direct benefit, but it's still a benefit.
And again, whether that's ENOUGH of a benefit is opinion.
-
But you can, imo, fairly presume that any edge you denied to your opponent is edge that would have been used against you, had you not been wearing armor. And whatever use that was (negating one of your hits, that edge filling out the cost for an edge action like shank, etc), it not happening because you wore armor is a GOOD thing. It's an indirect benefit rather than a direct benefit, but it's still a benefit.
And again, whether that's ENOUGH of a benefit is opinion.
So you concede that a Body 10 troll gets no value from armour in many situations, yes? As ARs of 14 or higher are rare and only come from high powered opponents. Such a troll might reasonably decide not to bother with armour when facing small-arms fire, as he will receive no benefit from it, directly or indirectly.
And you concede that a human with Body 4 and an armoured jacket gets almost no value from adding a helmet, yes? As there are only limited number of ways to get an AR of exactly 12. Such a character might play an entire campaign and never be attacked with AR 12, and hence never benefit from the helmet, directly or indirectly.
Incidentally, before you play the “you can get all values of AR via situational modifiers” card, be aware I am in the process of writing a python script to generate every possible combination of AR and DR in the 6e CRB, so I have data for this.
-
But you can, imo, fairly presume that any edge you denied to your opponent is edge that would have been used against you, had you not been wearing armor. And whatever use that was (negating one of your hits, that edge filling out the cost for an edge action like shank, etc), it not happening because you wore armor is a GOOD thing. It's an indirect benefit rather than a direct benefit, but it's still a benefit.
And again, whether that's ENOUGH of a benefit is opinion.
So you concede that a Body 10 troll gets no value from armour in many situations, yes? As ARs of 14 or higher are rare and only come from high powered opponents. Such a troll might reasonably decide not to bother with armour when facing small-arms fire, as he will receive no benefit from it, directly or indirectly.
Well, Body 10 is well off the scale for human potential. So a troll with 10 body is, literally, super-human. We're talking about a brute that's got more in common with the likes of a grizzly bear than a regular person when it comes to what happens when you shoot it... yeah you might hurt it. What's for sure is you'll piss it off!
Whether it's a grizzly bear or a troll shadowrunner, yeah your rent-a-cop or gutter punk isn't likely to have the AR to threaten that DR. Let's presume they're wiedling stun batons or knives. They'd earn edge vs unarmored humans... but the troll is so tough they don't earn edge!
However, you might say, your point is that armor was pointless for the troll in this case, yes? Well, I flatly disagree. Ok, it would be pointless if it was ONE rent-a-cop or ganger. Just as a regular human doesn't need armor for protection from a toddler's attacks, right? But once you have a grunt group of 5 of them, now you're talking about ARs high enough to gain edge vs an unarmored troll with 10 body. This point segues into:
And you concede that a human with Body 4 and an armoured jacket gets almost no value from adding a helmet, yes? As there are only limited number of ways to get an AR of exactly 12. Such a character might play an entire campaign and never be attacked with AR 12, and hence never benefit from the helmet, directly or indirectly.
Incidentally, before you play the “you can get all values of AR via situational modifiers” card, be aware I am in the process of writing a python script to generate every possible combination of AR and DR in the 6e CRB, so I have data for this.
No, I absolutely don't concede that there are "sour spots" where increasing your DR nets no effective bonus because nothing has an AR exactly 4 higher than what you raised it to. Because I don't believe that AR 12 is such a niche number that it's rarely hit exactly. I'd be curious to see what your script says, because off the top of my head I can think of lots of ways to get AR 12. Or any specific AR value (inside a reasonable range of course), to be honest. Ammo types, firing modes, attacking in groups, and smartlinks all add to AR. Frankly, AR10 + smartlink is something that's got to have at least half a dozen possible combinations. And doubtlessly there'll be even more beyond the CRB gear as more books come out. Also, now that STR adds to melee AR, STR 3 with a sword or combat axe is AR12. Gangers with knives and 4 STR are AR 12. I'm thinking it's you who will be surprised how many ways you can have AR 12, rather than me being surprised at how few.
-
I'm not completely opposed to Attack Rating. It neatly lumps together situational and accessory modifiers into an easy-to-summarize statistic. Defense Rating is sort of janky though, for any number of reasons that have been brought up already. My main thought on the "armor doesn't do anything" debate is that DR (possiby) gaining an Edge for the defender or (possibly) preventing the attacker from gaining Edge is a superfluous mechanic (and I'm leaning towards that view for the new Edge system as a whole). The heavy focus on Edge gain/expenditure per round doesn't have nearly the significant impact overall that it warrants removing a damage mitigation mechanic for wearing armor. Whether it be something like "DR/2 autohits for soak" or "If DR is higher than AR, Physical damage becomes Stun damage" in addition to (or replacing) the ARvsDR Edge system, it would have made more sense, because you wear armor to stop bullets. The abstract concept of "your armor makes you lucky so in two or three turns you can reduce damage hits by 1" doesn't model the function of armor whatsoever, and it's strongly disliked by pretty much everyone that comments on it that doesn't have the "Associate/Employee of Catalyst Game Labs" tag under there name.
-
... The abstract concept of "your armor makes you lucky so in two or three turns you can reduce damage hits by 1" doesn't model the function of armor whatsoever, and it's strongly disliked by pretty much everyone that comments on it that doesn't have the "Associate/Employee of Catalyst Game Labs" tag under there name.
If that actually described the extent of armor's benefit, then yes that'd be problematic. But it isn't an accurate evaluation of the benefit of a point of edge. When used to reroll dice, every 1 edge is 2/3 odds of a hit swinging in your favor, not 1/3 or 1/4 odds.
Consider what happens if you don't wear any armor. "Armor doesn't do anything" suggests that there's no advantage to wearing armor versus not wearing armor. Most ARs vs naked BOD will result in edge for the attacker. That's an edge to force you to reroll one of your hits on the dodge, which means 2 in 3 chance the attacker gains an additional net hit on you. If you just wore the armor and had enough DR to prevent the edge, that's 2 in 3 odds of you having 1 more hit than you would have otherwise had if you were naked. That's 2/3 of a damage point. And more than that, if the total hits were close enough it's 2/3 odds of keeping a miss a miss or turning a successful attack into a miss.
And of course that all is even without recognizing that armor preventing edge gain means that armor can potentially keep you from being Shanked, or Knockout Blow'd, or suffer other nasty Edge Actions by keeping your attacker from generating the necessary meta-currency to use the "powerup attack".
-
'I evade the attack without using the Edge so now I can use it on anything else.'
-
I fear this debate has devolved into an "apples versus oranges" scenario. No matter how many times the proponents cite examples of the mechanic, the detractors aren't going to suddenly come around because it's not that the RAW is being misunderstood, it's that it is understood and it's being labeled as counter-intuitive and poorly thought out. I'm just going to make a quick statement, then be done with it (for the time being, at least).
Assume throughout the entirety of a combat scene that neither attacker or defender receive 4+ AR/DR for Edge gain and every attack resolution test is a tie. There are ways that damage can be increased every attack (ammunition, augmentations, etc.) whereas there is no innate quality about armor that can reduce it. It doesn't matter if you're butt naked or if you're in full body armor because damage mitigation beyond a Body test is purely a function of a spendable resource. As written, the utility of armor is hoping that you "out luck" the attacker, which is just... bad. It's a bad mechanic. Defend it all you want, you know it's bad.
-
Anyone whom is unwilling or unable to admit that there are times when armor literally mechanically does nothing is either ignorant of the rules or a liar. Period. Now, is that a problem? That is a matter of opinion. For me it is, but for others they may not care. Example street sam:
Human
Body 11 (6 natural, 1 exceptional attribute, 4 bone density augmentation)
Dermal Deposits 1
Orthoskin 4
This character has a DR of 16 without wearing armor. No printed ranged weapon can gain edge from attacking him, and it would require a character with a strength of 9+ to gain edge swinging a katana.
Take the same build, but make it a troll with 10 body, and add two cyberarms with 4 armor each. That character has a DR of 27. Not even another troll with strength 14 and a katana (AR 24) can gain edge attacking that character.
Neither of those characters have armor, because wearing it would actually, literally do nothing mechanically for them. Before you argue "but armor mods!", that is not what we are talking about there.
Well, Body 10 is well off the scale for human potential. So a troll with 10 body is, literally, super-human. We're talking about a brute that's got more in common with the likes of a grizzly bear than a regular person when it comes to what happens when you shoot it... yeah you might hurt it. What's for sure is you'll piss it off!
I don't disagree with you that a Body of 10 is clearly superhuman, but I do disagree that because of that allowing armor on top of it to do nothing whatsoever is either logical or acceptable.
-
Well, for the third time now, preventing a potential edge gain IS doing something.
with regards to having a "naked" DR high enough it's already preventing edge gain... this is a case where armor is already irrelevant. When you have DR16 without armor on, many attacks are to you as a toddler's swings and bites are to a typical adult.
And frankly what MORE do you want armor to do? You're likely already taking little or no damage anyway with a soak pool that big.
One's opinion on armor in 6we has to ultimately weigh in on "Do you WANT people being reasonably likely to completely soak a hit?". If your answer to that is "YES!", then I think that you're fighting against the current. 5e had the problem where when you're successfully attacked, it meant you likely soaked it all, or the hit was so titanic it one shotted you. THAT was terrible game design to leave precious little happening in-between. I'll unapologetically take "you usually suffer some minor-to-moderate damage every time you're hit" 10 times out of 10 over 4e/5e's paradigm.
-
Well, for the third time now, preventing a potential edge gain IS doing something.
1). That is a function of DR, not a function of armor. Armor can contribute to that happening, but there are instances where it does not. Though related, these are not the same things.
2). Neither of those examples even had armor, so clearly an item that is not present cannot do something.
A little nitpicky of me, but I find the distinctions important. I genuinely just want you guys to admit it is true that there are instances, and numerous of them, where the presence or absence of armor is truly irrelevant to the mechanical outcome of an attack.
And frankly what MORE do you want armor to do? You're likely already taking little or no damage anyway with a soak pool that big.
I want armor to protect characters from a portion of damage. Really simple. I also want wearing armor to
always provide some sort of benefit over just being naked, and this second one is equally important. Right now it can only situationally do these things.
Reducing opponent edge gain does not equal reducing incoming damage. Sometimes it can, but often it doesn't.
One's opinion on armor in 6we has to ultimately weigh in on "Do you WANT people being reasonably likely to completely soak a hit?"
Honestly, I am indifferent to this personally. I'd rather see damage codes increased by +1 across the board and then have worn armor add to soak pools, or something similar and more sensical than the current incarnation.
-
I don't disagree with you that a Body of 10 is clearly superhuman, but I do disagree that because of that allowing armor on top of it to do nothing whatsoever is either logical or acceptable.
I'm not a fan of the whole AR/DR system for a lot of reasons, and whether a rule is acceptable or not is a matter of aesthetic preference, so you can find it unacceptable all you want, that's cool.
But I don't think the rule is illogical. It seems reasonable to me that combatant can be so cyber-ed up/magic-ed up/troll-ed up that armor is literally useless to them. I'm ok with diminishing returns in damage resistance. I mean, in the fiction, I'm picturing that troll you described and like, where do you even put the armor? Its like putting a smear of butter on top of a massive double bacon chili cheeseburger. Sure, it adds a bit more grease, but really, why bother?
If anything, the fact that the troll literally can't benefit from armor because they are so bad ass is one of the few things I LIKE about AR/DR. A run of the mill human has to put on something like that suit Bruce Banner wears in Avengers: Infinity War just to have a hope of standing toe to toe with that troll in his underwear; that's pretty awesome.
EDIT: in response to your post that came in while I was typing this, I freely admit there are situations where armor will have no effect. ;D
-
One's opinion on armor in 6we has to ultimately weigh in on "Do you WANT people being reasonably likely to completely soak a hit?". If your answer to that is "YES!", then I think that you're fighting against the current. 5e had the problem where when you're successfully attacked, it meant you likely soaked it all, or the hit was so titanic it one shotted you. THAT was terrible game design to leave precious little happening in-between. I'll unapologetically take "you usually suffer some minor-to-moderate damage every time you're hit" 10 times out of 10 over 4e/5e's paradigm.
Problem is, that is how it works in the real world and that's why people wore armor through history, thus, it's making sense and feels natural and it's intuitive.
Armor is not a "maybe it helps a bit" thing. It's the thing you wear specifically for surviving hits that would otherwise seriously damage, or kill you. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even makes you harder to being hit (though one could argue it makes you harder to got hit meaningfully), but it protects you and it protects you WELL. Otherwise, it wouldn't worth the extra bulk, weight and less freedom of movement to wear it.
Armor adding to soak, is, IMO preferable. Having a serious impact on defense rolls is acceptable. That could even work like it's adding more edge points, not just one, depending on the armor, or the difference in AR/DR or whatnot, but those extra edge points being usable only for the defense roll, or soak roll in question. I dunno, I'm just thinking about possibilities. One thing I'm sure of: as it is, it's inadequate. For me, that's a lot bigger problem than having the occassional hyper-specialized troll tank character.
-
I don't disagree with you that a Body of 10 is clearly superhuman, but I do disagree that because of that allowing armor on top of it to do nothing whatsoever is either logical or acceptable.
I'm not a fan of the whole AR/DR system for a lot of reasons, and whether a rule is acceptable or not is a matter of aesthetic preference, so you can find it unacceptable all you want, that's cool.
What you like is preference. What makes sense is not, unfortunately.
But I don't think the rule is illogical. It seems reasonable to me that combatant can be so cyber-ed up/magic-ed up/troll-ed up that armor is literally useless to them. I'm ok with diminishing returns in damage resistance. I mean, in the fiction, I'm picturing that troll you described and like, where do you even put the armor? Its like putting a smear of butter on top of a massive double bacon chili cheeseburger. Sure, it adds a bit more grease, but really, why bother?
If anything, the fact that the troll literally can't benefit from armor because they are so bad ass is one of the few things I LIKE about AR/DR. A run of the mill human has to put on something like that suit Bruce Banner wears in Avengers: Infinity War just to have a hope of standing toe to toe with that troll in his underwear; that's pretty awesome.
It's just not how it works. As long as the assumption is that the material the armor was made of is more durable than even the flesh and skin of the troll, it makes sense to them to wear it.
Cyber? That's literally armor and adding more armor to the vital spots, joints, head, etc makes sense, if you want that. It's just blurry, because well, if the coverage of the 'ware IS the armor itself, to the extent that adding more would make the construction too heavy, yes, then, that's it. You have armor, by virtue of having cyber.
Magic? Absolutely makes sense, since there are lots of things that could cancel out your magical protection, so wearing at least some moderate armor, just in case, is a no-brainer.Also, if you magical defense is not infinitely strong as to deflect anything, then, it's just about layers of protection.
-
...Problem is, that is how it works in the real world and that's why people wore armor through history, thus, it's making sense and feels natural and it's intuitive...
Well, aside from the very earliest days of firearms, armor hasn't BEEN bulletproof. "Bullet proof vest", in the real world, is an oxymoron. Do they help? sure. can you die anyway, despite the help? of course. Flak vests don't even pretend to stop bullets... they're solely for protection from much lower velocity projectiles (shrapnel).
And while some 21st century body armor has made dramatic strides in protection, you still don't get shot and in game terms come away with no damage, even if the projectile strikes a ceramic plate instead of you.
Shadowrun used to be a game where you can get shot and expect to suffer no damage whatsoever. Some people liked that. Some didn't. Shadowrun is now (in 6we anyway) a game where it's no longer probable to come away with no damage whatsoever if you get shot. Some people like that. Some don't. This inability to go full on Arnold walking through a hail of bullets that plink off you with no more consequence than raindrops is, in my opinion, a good thing.
-
...Problem is, that is how it works in the real world and that's why people wore armor through history, thus, it's making sense and feels natural and it's intuitive...
Well, aside from the very earliest days of firearms, armor hasn't BEEN bulletproof. "Bullet proof vest", in the real world, is an oxymoron. Do they help? sure. can you die anyway, despite the help? of course. Flak vests don't even pretend to stop bullets... they're solely for protection from much lower velocity projectiles (shrapnel).
And while some 21st century body armor has made dramatic strides in protection, you still don't get shot and in game terms come away with no damage, even if the projectile strikes a ceramic plate instead of you.
Shadowrun used to be a game where you can get shot and suffer no damage whatsoever. Some people liked that. Some didn't. Shadowrun is now (in 6we anyway) a game where it's no longer probable to come away with no damage whatsoever if you get shot. Some people like that. Some don't. This inability to go full on Arnold walking through a hail of bullets that plink off you with no more consequence than raindrops is, in my opinion, a good thing.
Then make armor to convert L damage to S up to armor rating, or as I wrote earlier, adding to the defense test, whatever.
Yes, armor is not as effective against bullets than historical armor was, against the weapons of the time, but still, soldiers woudn't wear it if it would do as little as in 6e.
I could agree with the intention of making impervious tanks not a think, but I think the current handling of armor went too far away in the other direction.
-
Yes, armor is not as effective against bullets than historical armor was, against the weapons of the time, but still, soldiers woudn't wear it if it would do as little as in 6e.
Well, if putting on an armored jacket meant I was 66% percent more likely to take no damage from being shot in the chest, I sure as hell would wear it. And that's exactly what happens when the armor DR prevents 1 edge from going to the attacker (when the attacker's attack test resulted in 1 less hit than your dodge test)
Armor has a "good" impact, but only in that central area on a distribution bell curve. At one end, you have the feeble attack on a robust target that didn't need any armor in the first place. At the other, you have attacks that can bypass any amount of armor. In the middle, and that's both the biggest part AND top of the bell curve btw, armor has the opportunity to prevent a miss from being turned into a hit, or at least take 1/DV off the DV of an attack. I don't mind when you get out into 2nd and 3rd standard deviations, that armor's contribution becomes functionally meaningless. MOST of the time it matters, and most of the time is good enough for me, when it comes to how the big picture all falls into place.
-
It's just not how it works. As long as the assumption is that the material the armor was made of is more durable than even the flesh and skin of the troll, it makes sense to them to wear it.
I'm not saying you are wrong to feel that way. I'm just saying that's not the only way to look at it. You say it doesn't make any sense that a bad ass troll gets no benefit from armor, I say it makes sense to me; we'll get nowhere that way, which is where this whole thread has been going for 2 or 3 pages. You and I don't agree on the basic premise, I think, of your argument; that somehow armor and cyber and magic and whatever all have to scale up in the same way and all be additive in some fashion without diminishing returns. I don't think that is necessary mechanically, nor do I think it is necessary fictionally. Maybe in some kind of "real world" it might be true, but I don't actually want much real-world in my Shadowrun; that is often as much distraction as it is useful.
Also, this discussion of whether and how armor should matter seems to be missing the elephant in the room. To my mind, almost everything that the AR/DR system achieves practically in the game could have been achieved with a simple trait comparison system and almost no math at all. I mean, in the end, there are a heck of a lot of numbers in the rulebook that you do some math on (man I dislike that -4 difference) to hand out a single point of Edge. This stands out in comparison to the other two potential sources of Edge which are almost entirely decided by GM Fiat. Why is this one bit so complicated compared to the others? If the goal was to be simple, it fails; there are still all kinds of one off modifiers throughout the book that you have to keep track of. If the goal was to be easy to implement at the table, it fails; there are too many cases where you'll have to remember some situational change which might make the difference between Edge or not. If the goal was to still allow for discriminating between all the different weapons and armor, it fails; it just ends up handing out the same point of Edge. So what was the goal of it?
If you want something that makes no sense to me, there you have it.
But even that, hey, that's just my aesthetic preference, really. I like games that have streamlined, concise, and elegant mechanics; SR 6E is not that and it won't be. But it IS Shadowrun, which I need very badly in my life right now, so I'm going to play it, make do, and enjoy it where I can, which I suspect will be a lot after two sessions so far.
-
Yes, armor is not as effective against bullets than historical armor was, against the weapons of the time, but still, soldiers woudn't wear it if it would do as little as in 6e.
Well, if putting on an armored jacket meant I was 66% percent more likely to take no damage from being shot in the chest, I sure as hell would wear it. And that's exactly what happens when the armor DR prevents 1 edge from going to the attacker (when the attacker's attack test resulted in 1 less hit than your dodge test)
Armor has a "good" impact, but only in that central area on a distribution bell curve. At one end, you have the feeble attack on a robust target that didn't need any armor in the first place. At the other, you have attacks that can bypass any amount of armor. In the middle, and that's both the biggest part AND top of the bell curve btw, armor has the opportunity to prevent a miss from being turned into a hit, or at least take 1/DV off the DV of an attack. I don't mind when you get out into 2nd and 3rd standard deviations, that armor's contribution becomes functionally meaningless. MOST of the time it matters, and most of the time is good enough for me, when it comes to how the big picture all falls into place.
Sorry, for me, it's too niche. It depends on the attacker being succesfull to depend on that one reroll and it assumes you have enough edge besides the one you're gaining from the armor. If not, it takes away only 1 DV, with no scaling in regards of the weapons and armor in question.
In short: too little constant effect and the really impactfull effect depends on too many variables.
-
Yes, armor is not as effective against bullets than historical armor was, against the weapons of the time, but still, soldiers woudn't wear it if it would do as little as in 6e.
Well, if putting on an armored jacket meant I was 66% percent more likely to take no damage from being shot in the chest, I sure as hell would wear it. And that's exactly what happens when the armor DR prevents 1 edge from going to the attacker (when the attacker's attack test resulted in 1 less hit than your dodge test)
Armor has a "good" impact, but only in that central area on a distribution bell curve. At one end, you have the feeble attack on a robust target that didn't need any armor in the first place. At the other, you have attacks that can bypass any amount of armor. In the middle, and that's both the biggest part AND top of the bell curve btw, armor has the opportunity to prevent a miss from being turned into a hit, or at least take 1/DV off the DV of an attack. I don't mind when you get out into 2nd and 3rd standard deviations, that armor's contribution becomes functionally meaningless. MOST of the time it matters, and most of the time is good enough for me, when it comes to how the big picture all falls into place.
Sorry, for me, it's too niche. It depends on the attacker being succesfull to depend on that one reroll and it assumes you have enough edge besides the one you're gaining from the armor. If not, it takes away only 1 DV, with no scaling in regards of the weapons and armor in question.
In short: too little constant effect and the really impactfull effect depends on too many variables.
Well except there is a very real and very strong constant effect that so so many people keep over looking even after I've pointed it out.
ALL damage codes have been reduced to compensate for armor not adding to the soak roll. That means in a round about way damage reduction due to armor is already baked into the weapons themselves.
I understand that means not wearing armor still means you gain this side effect mechanic of it but it is still the case and actually supports the case that armor does almost nothing.
-
It's just not how it works. As long as the assumption is that the material the armor was made of is more durable than even the flesh and skin of the troll, it makes sense to them to wear it.
I'm not saying you are wrong to feel that way. I'm just saying that's not the only way to look at it. You say it doesn't make any sense that a bad ass troll gets no benefit from armor, I say it makes sense to me; we'll get nowhere that way, which is where this whole thread has been going for 2 or 3 pages. You and I don't agree on the basic premise, I think, of your argument; that somehow armor and cyber and magic and whatever all have to scale up in the same way and all be additive in some fashion without diminishing returns. I don't think that is necessary mechanically, nor do I think it is necessary fictionally. Maybe in some kind of "real world" it might be true, but I don't actually want much real-world in my Shadowrun; that is often as much distraction as it is useful.
I like my games to at least feel "realistic" on the surface, meaning they have to make sense from a common sense perspective at a cursory glance. If not, that's breakig my suspension of disbelief and immersion into the game world. I'm not into systems, which are going for "rule of cool" and "genre emulation" over at least a baseline attempt on a cohesive realism. IRL, people put as much armor on themselves, or vehicles and such as they could get away with, in the appropriate context and goal.
Moreover, I don't see SR characters that extremely. That is much more anime/comics level. Sure Superman doesn't need armor, because he's already invulnerable (except, when he's going against a foe knowingly using cryptonite, in which case, he 'does' put on armor...). SR characters aren't Superman, even trolls. For them, putting on as much armor as they could in a given situation is the sensible approach.
Also, this discussion of whether and how armor should matter seems to be missing the elephant in the room. To my mind, almost everything that the AR/DR system achieves practically in the game could have been achieved with a simple trait comparison system and almost no math at all. I mean, in the end, there are a heck of a lot of numbers in the rulebook that you do some math on (man I dislike that -4 difference) to hand out a single point of Edge. This stands out in comparison to the other two potential sources of Edge which are almost entirely decided by GM Fiat. Why is this one bit so complicated compared to the others? If the goal was to be simple, it fails; there are still all kinds of one off modifiers throughout the book that you have to keep track of. If the goal was to be easy to implement at the table, it fails; there are too many cases where you'll have to remember some situational change which might make the difference between Edge or not. If the goal was to still allow for discriminating between all the different weapons and armor, it fails; it just ends up handing out the same point of Edge.
Agree with that.
So what was the goal of it?
Having to do less math on the fly, I guess. I'd agree, the edge system is not particularly good at being really easy to use and learn, not like adv/disadv in D&D 5e. In some respects, it's actually harder, with more rules to keep in mind and more potential analysis paralisis. On the other hand, it's more interactive and maybe more "fun" than calculating modifiers. I can imagine a version, where I'd like it, but as it is now, I'm not quite sold on the whole.
If you want something that makes no sense to me, there you have it.
But even that, hey, that's just my aesthetic preference, really. I like games that have streamlined, concise, and elegant mechanics; SR 6E is not that and it won't be. But it IS Shadowrun, which I need very badly in my life right now, so I'm going to play it, make do, and enjoy it where I can, which I suspect will be a lot after two sessions so far.
Have fun! :) I think I'd wait for a few supplements and see how it shakes out. Right now, our group is deep in a D&D 3.5 campaign and we have an ongoing SR campaign at rest which started with 3e and switched to 5e.
-
Yes, armor is not as effective against bullets than historical armor was, against the weapons of the time, but still, soldiers woudn't wear it if it would do as little as in 6e.
Well, if putting on an armored jacket meant I was 66% percent more likely to take no damage from being shot in the chest, I sure as hell would wear it. And that's exactly what happens when the armor DR prevents 1 edge from going to the attacker (when the attacker's attack test resulted in 1 less hit than your dodge test)
Armor has a "good" impact, but only in that central area on a distribution bell curve. At one end, you have the feeble attack on a robust target that didn't need any armor in the first place. At the other, you have attacks that can bypass any amount of armor. In the middle, and that's both the biggest part AND top of the bell curve btw, armor has the opportunity to prevent a miss from being turned into a hit, or at least take 1/DV off the DV of an attack. I don't mind when you get out into 2nd and 3rd standard deviations, that armor's contribution becomes functionally meaningless. MOST of the time it matters, and most of the time is good enough for me, when it comes to how the big picture all falls into place.
Sorry, for me, it's too niche. It depends on the attacker being succesfull to depend on that one reroll and it assumes you have enough edge besides the one you're gaining from the armor. If not, it takes away only 1 DV, with no scaling in regards of the weapons and armor in question.
In short: too little constant effect and the really impactfull effect depends on too many variables.
Well except there is a very real and very strong constant effect that so so many people keep over looking even after I've pointed it out.
ALL damage codes have been reduced to compensate for armor not adding to the soak roll. That means in a round about way damage reduction due to armor is already baked into the weapons themselves.
I understand that means not wearing armor still means you gain this side effect mechanic of it but it is still the case and actually supports the case that armor does almost nothing.
Yes and it's... not really good, IMO.
Honestly, I don't get why devs today feel the need to reinvent the wheel and coming up with rules for things like armor that are just worse than the varsions we've had for long and worked just well. First, Vampire 5e came out and in that, they made armor to degrade lethal damage to bashing/superficial, but doing nothing against bashing in the first place. Which meant that vampires, who already get only bashing damage from normal, mundane sources finding themselves in the situation where suddenly, armor just doesn not work any more for them. The reasoning was actually something similar, like "they are already supernaturally hardy", which, IMO, misses the point. If a walking, supernaturally resistant corpse puts on a body armor, it won't became suddenly made out of printed paper. No, you will get a supernaturally resistant walking corpse THAT IS EVEN HARDER TO DAMAGE. Also, it means that even mundanes won't get any benefit from armor when taking bashing damage. Which means you punch someone in the solar plexus in armor and he's taking the same damage as naked. It's just a mess and a bad rule and I don't get why they thought it's a good idea instead of simple damage resistance, which would be even a bit simpler to use.
Same here. We've had multiple versions of armor in this game and in many other games too, which are worked fine and made sense. I don't get why they felt the need to come up with one that doesn't and which needs roundabout justifications.
-
I understand stand that as well, and I have been public about the fact that I did NOT support this version during development. I just wanted to pint out that there is a constant benefit to having armor in the game ... just not exactly by wearing it ... which is weird I know
-
I understand stand that as well, and I have been public about the fact that I did NOT support this version during development. I just wanted to pint out that there is a constant benefit to having armor in the game ... just not exactly by wearing it ... which is weird I know
That doesn't really make sense...
"Armor has had the effect of REDUCING weapon damage codes."
SO, now I get the benefit of armor, without wearing armor, and IF I want to wear armor, it does.... Nothing??!
Ok.. what?!?!!?
Listen, I don't have the game yet... and if we switch to 6e is up to the GM.. He has the book... and so far... well.....
I think the words he used was "I rank it right up there with Twilight"
...
THAT is not an encouraging remark from a guy that has played SR since the very beginning, has bought every single book, PDF, box set, and magazine article that contained anything Shadowrun....
And it makes me really worried.
-
Armour impacts AR vs DR and the resulting Edge flow, and the capacity is really important due to several mods being exhausted on usage. That is not nothing. Whether that suffices for you is up to you, but it's not nothing. If we want any kind of debate on the matter, that claim needs to be taken off the table first.
Btw my brother actually read Twilight to know its flaws and he actually likes SR6.
-
Armour impacts AR vs DR and the resulting Edge flow, and the capacity is really important due to several mods being exhausted on usage. That is not nothing. Whether that suffices for you is up to you, but it's not nothing. If we want any kind of debate on the matter, that claim needs to be taken off the table first.
Indeed. Opinions don't have to align, but my involvement for the last pages has been to combat the claim that "armor does nothing". No, it only does a lot less than it did in 5e.
I made a point about it because when some people engage in hyperbole like "armor does nothing", other people who don't know any better might actually believe it.
-
That claim can't be taken off the table while it remains situationally true, though. Likes, dislikes, and preferences are an aside to that fact. In SR6, armor sometimes does nothing. It is fact.
I challenge SSDR or MC to tell me how armor would affect either of the very simple DR builds I listed above when being shot or stabbed by any printed traditional ballistic gun or non-energy melee weapon (beyond what I outlined - strength 9+ and katana or similar for the human, impossible for the troll). Likewise, I appreciate Banshee for acknowledging that armor sometimes does nothing. If I can just make these two see and admit it my work here is done. :p
The factual statement about armor is it may help you, or it may not. It depends on your DR with and without it vs. the attackers AR.
-
That claim can't be taken off the table while it remains situationally true, though. Likes, dislikes, and preferences are an aside to that fact. In SR6, armor sometimes does nothing. It is fact.
I challenge SSDR or MC to tell me how armor would affect either of the very simple DR builds I listed above when being shot or stabbed by any printed traditional ballistic gun or non-energy melee weapon (beyond what I outlined - strength 9+ and katana or similar for the human, impossible for the troll). Likewise, I appreciate Banshee for acknowledging that armor sometimes does nothing. If I can just make these two see and admit it my work here is done. :p
The factual statement about armor is it may help you, or it may not. It depends on your DR with and without it vs. the attackers AR.
Well I didn't exactly say it does nothing ...just that it feels like it does nothing because it hidden in the mechanicsof other things. It's a minor point but still an important to make.
-
I understand your distinction. But in fairness, I also didn't say, or say that you said, armor does nothing. I said there are situations where armor does nothing, and that you acknowledged that.
-
That claim can't be taken off the table while it remains situationally true, though. Likes, dislikes, and preferences are an aside to that fact. In SR6, armor sometimes does nothing. It is fact.
I challenge SSDR or MC to tell me how armor would affect either of the very simple DR builds I listed above when being shot or stabbed by any printed traditional ballistic gun or non-energy melee weapon (beyond what I outlined - strength 9+ and katana or similar for the human, impossible for the troll). Likewise, I appreciate Banshee for acknowledging that armor sometimes does nothing. If I can just make these two see and admit it my work here is done. :p
Yes, Armor does nothing when you're not even shot at. You win? :D
Ok that was cheeky, but it addresses what I see as a wrinkle in your argument. You're going to the bother of bolding the word "armor" and saying it does nothing. Well, ok. It INDIRECTLY helps, via the DR mechanic, and indirect help is still more than "nothing" in my book.
Does it do less than in 5e? Yes, we agree. Does it do a LOT less than in 5e? Yes, we agree. Is that a good thing? We disagree.
When it comes to the specific builds you are talking about, I presume you mean the ones you listed here (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=30862.msg534804#msg534804)? And if so, well, I already addressed them.
But I'll do it again.
Armor-less human with 16 DR, or an armor-less troll with DR27. What's the point in them wearing armor, you say?
Ok, first of all, admittedly, there are ALWAYS niches where the rules don't cover well. And as I pointed out before, the armor mechanic works best in the ~68% percent of the instances that are within one standard deviation of "mean", and less well when you get into "extreme corner cases". Naturally you'll want to argue with me about how we don't define "mean" and "extreme corner cases" in the same way, so let's just skip that then.
The armor-less uman with 16 DR is GAINING edge against AR 11 and under. Yes that's very good. But it's not as good as DR 16 + armor, because 12+AR is not at all hard to achieve, even before grouping up attacks. So adding armor to that DR16 means you gain edge against that much MORE cases. Putting a basic armored jacket on means the AR now has to break 17 before you're not gaining edge.
Ok, the troll is the same situation only more extreme-y. Starting out that ridiculously high means, in practical terms, we have to be talking about some extreme ARs and/or grouped attacks before edge is denied to the defender. A pack of cyberninjas with Monofilament Whips level drek to reasonably deny you edge. But just like before, simply putting on a goddamned armor jacket now means even a pack attack from MFWs isn't taking away that bonus from the troll.
I think it was skalchemist who said it's a difference between diminishing returns and a linear scaling benefit. Armor's impact isn't scaling linearly anymore. And having diminishing returns isn't nothing.
-
You're going to the bother of bolding the word "armor" and saying it does nothing. Well, ok. It INDIRECTLY helps, via the DR mechanic, and indirect help is still more than "nothing" in my book.
For clarity, I bold armor in effort to highlight I am speaking strictly of worn body armor and nothing else.
Does it do less than in 5e? Yes, we agree. Does it do a LOT less than in 5e? Yes, we agree. Is that a good thing? We disagree.
Yeah, that is all just a matter of opinion, but also totally irrelevant to my statement that armor sometimes does literally nothing.
When it comes to the specific builds you are talking about, I presume you mean the ones you listed here (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=30862.msg534804#msg534804)? And if so, well, I already addressed them.
Yes, those are the ones, and if you addressed them I totally missed it. My bad there.
In rebuttal, I do not disagree with any of your assessments. You have valid points. But opinions and flavor aside, I want to talk about the hard mechanical facts. Do you agree or disagree that:
1). DR stacks infinitely higher than AR as far as the realm of PCs are concerned. Taking that troll to the extreme would yield another 12-16 DR from cyber replacement, and that is not even optimal maximization. For that, a grunt group of unrealistically high force spirits or a dragon or similar is the only thing that will punch through it.
2). There are some instances (and the word some can be argued for frequency, but that is again irrelevant to this truth) where the presence or absence of armor on a character is completely mechanically irrelevant.
I am not arguing whether I like the armor/DR system or not - we all know I am not a fan. I am arguing a strict, hard, mechanical truth. That is it.
Just like you and MC are bothered by people talking about armor in what you see as hyperbole terms, I am bothered by the two of you being unable or unwilling to admit (because I know you see it, you are both smart) that sometimes armor does do literally nothing.
-
Cover does nothing: Sometimes, the DR boost has no effect and the extra dice don't help because they didn't roll any hits / I already dodged anyway. Cover must be heavily boosted.
Drain does nothing: Sometimes, I cast weak spells and do not get into any risk drain-wise. Drain must be heavily boosted.
Focused Concentration does nothing: I can't keep 4 net hits on Increase Reflexes. Focused Concentration must be boosted.
Just because you don't see an effect in some scenarios, doesn't mean there's no effect at all. 'Under specific circumstances, there's no impact', is NOT the same as 'it does nothing'. As long as those two completely different claims are being equated as the same, the intent is clear: Bash SR6, truth be damned.
If you want to actually debate about 'I feel the rule needs changes because of the following cases', that's fine. But arguing special cases equate a universal truth, means there's no actual sincerity present.
As for the provided cases:
- BDA does not add Body, it only adds to your soak roll. So the unarmored human has 12 Defense Rating, not 16, even if their soak is 11.
- Even if the Human had 11 Body (thanks to Improved Body spell), 4 grunts with Smartlinked Ares Predators / Alphas would have a total AR of 15. They can use SA-mode for +1 damage and -2 AR without granting the Human Edge, because he's not wearing Armor. If he were wearing 2 Armor, even 5 grunts would not be able to gain 1 damage from SA-mode without granting him Edge.
- If the grunts were to use wireless Bipods on top of smartlinks, they gain +5 AR. So 10+5+group-bonus. That puts a single grunt at 15. Add Gas-Vent and they can do a BF with +2 damage without granting Edge. Shockpads make it 14 AR for 1 grunt, 18 AR for 5 grunts at BF mode. At that point, the Human needs to wear an additional 6 armor*(fixed) to force them into SA mode.
By the way, I'd say that 'none of these characters have armor' when they literally have armor implants, sounds like an extremely weird statement. Combined by the insistence that 'in some cases it makes no difference' equates 'it does nothing', I don't think there's any point to this 'debate'.
-
Yes, it's not nothing, it's just not really impactfull. Gaining 1 edge is just not that much (or that hard to get) in this system and also doesn't scaling with better armor.
At best, it saves you 1 damage. Big whooop.
Even a version where better armor would give more edge that you could use only on that defense test would make it okay.
-
Oh: Add APDS to the Grunts, and they're at 20 AR. Since the Troll actually has 10 Body, not 14, the 4+8 Armor (assuming your GM allows those to stack, really) brings him to 23 DR. Suddenly he no longer gets Edge because he's not wearing clothes.
/micdrop
-
Well it's a big difference between claiming armor SOMETIMES does nothing, and armor (always/flatly) does nothing.
I've been refuting the latter, rather than the former.
Because, sure. If you have DR16 without armor, and you're hit by a feeble AR 6 attack, obviously adding armor isn't helping. It doesn't HAVE to.
-
Oh: Add APDS to the Grunts, and they're at 20 AR. Since the Troll actually has 10 Body, not 14, the 4+8 Armor (assuming your GM allows those to stack, really) brings him to 23 DR. Suddenly he no longer gets Edge because he's not wearing clothes.
/micdrop
But they do stack, because the book explicitly states what does not, and those are not on that very short list. You might want to pick that mic back up.
Granted I missed that bone density does not apply to DR, that's my bad. I don't think we need to shuffle the goal posts here though, because DR stacking much higher than AR is pretty obvious outside the giant spirit gang/dragon or similar scenario. A PC cannot get AR as high as DR, outside of extreme karma mages for combat spells.
Your comments on cover, drain, and focused concentration are non-equivalent and you know it.
When I say armor, I am referring strictly to worn body armor. My argument is not "DR sometimes does nothing", because that always does something.
Just because you don't see an effect in some scenarios, doesn't mean there's no effect at all. 'Under specific circumstances, there's no impact', is NOT the same as 'it does nothing'. As long as those two completely different claims are being equated as the same, the intent is clear: Bash SR6, truth be damned.
You also cannot say that of me any more than I can say that you always defend SR6. I have seen you disagreeing with implementation, and you have seen posts of me praising some implementation, even if I am not an overall fan. So drop that shit already.
-
Well it's a big difference between claiming armor SOMETIMES does nothing, and armor (always/flatly) does nothing.
I've been refuting the latter, rather than the former.
Because, sure. If you have DR16 without armor, and you're hit by a feeble AR 6 attack, obviously adding armor isn't helping. It doesn't HAVE to.
I can see how that would be an important distinction for you, and I have no issue with that. For me, context is more important than what exactly is said. So hearing "armor does nothing" doesn't ruffle my feathers, because I am aware than can often be accurate.
Part of the issue for many people who criticize the implementation, and this applies to me as well, as that it feels like armor does very little/not as much as it should. And this is what Banshee was pointing out earlier, that it does less in the game because on an out of game level they lowered damage for it to be less impactful in the game. The end result just doesn't feel right to many, but it is not inherently wrong or anything. It's just a matter of tastes.
But speaking of tastes, and why I am such a stickler for my position here, is that adding body armor to something (no matter how durable) should always increase durability in a meaningful matter, in particular in a game where getting hit almost certainly results in damage taken.
My $0.02 there.
-
Look per banshees own admission wearing a bikini and an armored suit are *almost* functionally equivalent due to the reduction in damage codes and the fact that armor confers at most -1/3 point of damage per attack.
That’s clearly a huge departure from anything approaching reality.
If you like that bs awesome, good for you.
However I don’t like eating those types of sandwiches thank you.
-
Seems like the exact same complaints, even the exact same arguments could be made by people with a 2e/3e context about the 4e/5e armor mechanics.
Armor doesn't reduce the TN, so it sometimes does nothing! If those extra soak dice don't turn up any hits, then armor DID NOTHING!
Of course that's ridiculous. Just because the extra dice didn't have any mechanical result in THIS CASE, it still could have/would have helped.
Swap "armor doesn't reduce the TN" with "armor doesn't add to soak pools", and "just because the soak pool dice didn't result in any hits doesn't mean it did nothing" with "just because the bonus DR didn't result in a change in the Edge check doesn't mean the armor did nothing" and it's the exact same argument separated by 2 edition changes.
-
Stainless that comment is not worthy of your level of knowledge.
Please give it some more thought in relation to the *actual* effect of armor in prior editions and edit accordingly.
-
I have no experience with previous systems other than 5e, so can't comment on that.
-
What's incorrect?
1e armor: rating=autohits on the soak
2e/3e armor: rating = reduction in Target Number to achieve successes on the soak test
4e/5e armor: rating = bonus dice to soak
Looking at 4e/5e from the perspective of someone playing 2e/3e, yes absolutely armor can potentially have "no effect" because hits are always pegged to an effective target number of 5+. Sure you get bonus dice, but sometimes those bonus dice won't result in a benefit whereas the TN always being lowered in 2e/3e would have at least been in place.
You only have to make minor edits to that complaint for it to be about 6we from people who preferred the 4e/5e approach to armor.
Looking at 6we from the perspective of someone playing 4e/5e, yes absolutely armor can potentially have "no effect" because it adds to DR rather than soak pool. Sure you get bonus DR, but sometimes that bonus DR won't result in a benefit whereas the soak pool being increased in 4e/5e would have always at least been in place.
I mean, demonstrably... inarguably... armor adds to DR. It never does nothing. Granted, increasing the DR may in turn as a 2nd order effect not give a mechanical benefit*, just as bonus dice in 4e/5e might not have resulted in any hits. But it still gave a benefit, even if that benefit technically didn't result in a positive change in the game state. Sure, it's a ton more probable that an increase in DR might result in no benefit than a shooka-shooka's worth of bonus dice results in no additional hits, but the principle is the same. And it's a meaningless difference anyway, as everyone agrees that armor does less in 6we than in 5e. It's supposed to.
*and let's not pretend that increasing DR for no positive change is anything more than a corner case scenario. Most of the time, yes increasing your DR actually means something.
-
In 5e you could increase Soak to no mechanical benefit as after a certain point you could buy enough hits to shake off any damage from a gun. In 6e you can increase DR to no mechanical benefit as after a certain point you've exceeded any Attack Rating you're likely to see.
As a GM I didn't like the huge variance in PC defense and soak pools that you found at 5E tables. But, IMO, 6E was an over correction as significant investments in DR don't pay "enough" to be worth it. Dermal Armor, Ortho Skin, Mystic Armor, all really expensive choices for what you gain.
Hopefully future 6E supplements will give some Quality or Edge Actions or something for the high end DR builds. Something that triggers at +6/+8/+10 or whatever.
Shrug it off! 3 Edge, if your DR is 8 or more higher than an incoming attack that attack does no Damage.
Quality You got nuthin! If your DR is 6 or more higher than an incoming attack gain +4 Dice on a Charisma + Intimidate check.
ect, ect, ect. Lots of ways to use the mechanic to make a higher DR mechanically desirable if they wanted to.
-
In 5e you could increase Soak to no mechanical benefit as after a certain point you could buy enough hits to shake off any damage from a gun. In 6e you can increase DR to no mechanical benefit as after a certain point you've exceeded any Attack Rating you're likely to see.
As a GM I didn't like the huge variance in PC defense and soak pools that you found at 5E tables. But, IMO, 6E was an over correction as significant investments in DR don't pay "enough" to be worth it. Dermal Armor, Ortho Skin, Mystic Armor, all really expensive choices for what you gain.
Hopefully future 6E supplements will give some Quality or Edge Actions or something for the high end DR builds. Something that triggers at +6/+8/+10 or whatever.
Shrug it off! 3 Edge, if your DR is 8 or more higher than an incoming attack that attack does no Damage.
Quality You got nuthin! If your DR is 6 or more higher than an incoming attack gain +4 Dice on a Charisma + Intimidate check.
ect, ect, ect. Lots of ways to use the mechanic to make a higher DR mechanically desirable if they wanted to.
Insider tease ... I think you will like Firing Squad
-
In 5e you could increase Soak to no mechanical benefit as after a certain point you could buy enough hits to shake off any damage from a gun. In 6e you can increase DR to no mechanical benefit as after a certain point you've exceeded any Attack Rating you're likely to see.
As a GM I didn't like the huge variance in PC defense and soak pools that you found at 5E tables. But, IMO, 6E was an over correction as significant investments in DR don't pay "enough" to be worth it. Dermal Armor, Ortho Skin, Mystic Armor, all really expensive choices for what you gain.
Hopefully future 6E supplements will give some Quality or Edge Actions or something for the high end DR builds. Something that triggers at +6/+8/+10 or whatever.
Shrug it off! 3 Edge, if your DR is 8 or more higher than an incoming attack that attack does no Damage.
Quality You got nuthin! If your DR is 6 or more higher than an incoming attack gain +4 Dice on a Charisma + Intimidate check.
ect, ect, ect. Lots of ways to use the mechanic to make a higher DR mechanically desirable if they wanted to.
(Keep in mind I don't have the 6e book yet)
I think part of the reason is also thematic.
I admit I don't know the rules for 6e, so I will not talk about them beyond from what I am understanding.
In the previous editions, it is true you CAN get stupid amounts of armor. No denying that. BUT, that doesn't mean you could actually do that 100% of the time. (hence the reason for the wide range of armors and options).
I am sorry to tell you this... but you just can NOT wear your heavy Mil Spec armor to a dinner party :P But you could wear an armored up Tuxedo, or dinner gown...
Naturally, your gown or Tuxedo wouldn't be as effective as your Mil Spec.. but at least you got in the front door.
Situation and circumstance usually dictate armor values in the actual game, far beyond shopping wish lists. (although the wish list comparison works for showing the "wonky" sit of things). And if you were allowing your troll to go to Dinner parties in mil spec armor, and were complaining about armor values in 5e....I don't don't think you'll like what I have to say :P
And, if you can't count on 3cm of ceramic hardened ballistic fibers to stop lead dead in its tracks, you plan around it. Or maybe you modded your armor for synergy with your team. There was options...
Even against the most heavily armored troll, you still had options.... Stick and shock ammo for stun damage (because while trolls do have huge health pools, their stun pools are usually tiny). Or gas grenades... or spells.
Now, from the sounds of it (and ONLY from the sounds of it. Again, I don't have the book, so just relying on what I understand 3rd hand), This aspect of the game has been reduced (or maybe just redefined??)... Which does concern me at bit....(although i have no doubt that the usual range and styles of armor are still there, along with the huge pile of mods).
It just sounding a little too... subjective... (basing this off other posts I have read).... What counts as an "advantage" seems to boil down to a simple judgement call instead of a mechanical advantage that has been defined...
"Alright, Timmy gets the Advantage, and thus the Edge to spend. Why? Well, his gun is Pink.. and distracting you by how awful it looks. Yes I know you have a laser sight, and smart link, but so does Timmy, hence the pink gun wins!"..
I really got to get off my ass and buy the book and read it...
-
Methinks the Edge-focus system is really the root of all this controversy. The Edge gain/expenditure per round mechanic is both over reaching and limited. If the intent of the new edition was for a more cinematic, stream-lined combat system then it fell short (just my opinion). If some mechanics of the previous edition were felt to be unbalanced (Accuracy/Limit, god-tier Soak Value), then just correct those and be done with it. A complete overhaul of the existing system was totally unnecessary, and it's (seemingly) lack of playtesting has created it's own complications.
House Rule
Remove Edge gain from AR/DR. Remove Edge Boosts actions. Edge may be used for any test at any time. Edge may be used to increase dice pools on a 1:1 basis. Edge may be used to reroll dice on a 2:1 basis, and benefit from "exploding 6's". Edge may be used to add hits on a 3:1 basis. Edge spent in the previous turn is refreshed at the beginning of your action turn.
I enjoy the concept of ARvsDR, but it's implementation is weak. Conceptually, being able to see in the dark better than the guy shooting at you has the same potential to alleviate damage from a gunshot as wearing armor does. That's not totally immersion-breaking, right? But conceptually, using APDS ammo, thinking about something real hard (Analytical Mind), or standing on one foot (Catlike) all have the same potential to alleviate the damage from a gunshot as wearing armor does, and that's just... whatever you want to call it. There's nothing special or specific about worn armor that represents it's function. Mechanically, it's just a good luck charm. Whether that's good enough is entirely up to you. We've all said our part, and at this point we're just low-key trolling each other =p
House Rule
If DR is higher than AR, net hits from the attack don't add to base damage.
EDIT: meant to hit Preview during proofreading, hit Post instead.
-
Situation and circumstance usually dictate armor values in the actual game, far beyond shopping wish lists. (although the wish list comparison works for showing the "wonky" sit of things). And if you were allowing your troll to go to Dinner parties in mil spec armor, and were complaining about armor values in 5e....I don't don't think you'll like what I have to say :P
Trolls get invited to Dinner Parties?
Yes, circumstance matters. However, Mortimer's or Sleeping Tiger starts at a 12 or 13, and you can easily have a slew of "+" ready to go with short notice (Hello Ares Armored Briefcase). Or in some cases already strapped on (Masquerade Ball or outdoor event so you can wear your custom stacking jacket?). I had a four cyberlimb Decker that had 28 dice of Soak even at a fancy Dinner Party. Not quite immune to Assault Rifles, but could take a few bursts before getting worried.
-
It’s clear to me that Sally Tsung, on the cover of the SR1 CRB, plays using 6E rules. Since a bikini is now almost as good at defense as a lined coat, and often causes security guards to delay a half-dozen rounds before they pull their guns, we’ll see a lot more skin in this game. More skin (daisy dukes or chain-link bikinis) in the artwork might attract a certain demographic of players. I state no opinion on whether this would be good or bad.
-
It’s clear to me that Sally Tsung, on the cover of the SR1 CRB, plays using 6E rules. Since a bikini is now almost as good at defense as a lined coat, and often causes security guards to delay a half-dozen rounds before they pull their guns, we’ll see a lot more skin in this game. More skin (daisy dukes or chain-link bikinis) in the artwork might attract a certain demographic of players. I state no opinion on whether this would be good or bad.
Indeed! What with Johnny Spinrad being a household name again, I forsee a new generation of Shadowrunners taking to the streets with only four cyberlimbs (Armor 2 each) and a bikini/banana hammock for protection. Costs more than Full Body Armor, but it's better protection AND you get to show off your bio-sculpted abs. That's not just rad, it's Spinrad 8)
-
It’s clear to me that Sally Tsung, on the cover of the SR1 CRB, plays using 6E rules. Since a bikini is now almost as good at defense as a lined coat, and often causes security guards to delay a half-dozen rounds before they pull their guns, we’ll see a lot more skin in this game. More skin (daisy dukes or chain-link bikinis) in the artwork might attract a certain demographic of players. I state no opinion on whether this would be good or bad.
Wait... a... minute....
I see what's going on!!!
The dev's were so tired of the "Bikini Armor" meme, They made rules to SUPPORT it!!
GM: "And Sally, gains the edge this combat turn..."
Todd: "What?!? Again!?!? that's the third turn in a row! I don't get it!! I've got an Assault Rifle, Heavy security armor, Wire Reflexes, smartgun, Over watch AI Drone, AND a broom up my ass so i can also sweep the floor while murdering!!! Why is SHE getting the Edge all the time?!?!"
GM: "Sally.. what is your character wearing again?"
Sally: "Only the lasest in tactical leopard print micro thong Bikini armor from Ares!"
GM: ".... And that's why she wins Edge. Every time."
-
I have no experience with previous systems other than 5e, so can't comment on that.
I got you.
This doc I made (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU) has a full worked example of a single combat resolution (Alice shoots Bob with an Ares Predator at Long range) in 1e/2e/3e/4e/5e/6e.
-
I have no experience with previous systems other than 5e, so can't comment on that.
I got you.
This doc I made (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU) has a full worked example of a single combat resolution (Alice shoots Bob with an Ares Predator at Long range) in 1e/2e/3e/4e/5e/6e.
My man! My take aways:
1). Having difficulties above 6 in a d6 game seems silly.
2). While armor did work very differently in those editions, it's benefit was also extremely clear in those examples and made a difference.
-
1). Having difficulties above 6 in a d6 game seems silly.
In mild defence, as a 2e vet, it did produce some amazing moments sometimes... I had a rigger trying to stop a jack-knifing 18-wheeler as it hurtled towards a cliff. He had to get something stupid like 14 or 15. He put everything into it, including his karma pool (omitted from the document but a little bit like Edge) and threw 20-odd dice down; we all held our breath as he picked up the sixes and rolled again... and again... and got it! Somehow. The odds against it were massive.
Also: smartlinks were well badass back then. -2 target number! Massive.
Still, though, I don't miss this mechanic. The fixed target number / floating dice count from 4e on are a lot more logical. 4e made a lot of good design decisions.
2). While armor did work very differently in those editions, it's benefit was also extremely clear in those examples and made a difference.
I concur.
-
1). Having difficulties above 6 in a d6 game seems silly.
In mild defence, as a 2e vet, it did produce some amazing moments sometimes... I had a rigger trying to stop a jack-knifing 18-wheeler as it hurtled towards a cliff. He had to get something stupid like 14 or 15. He put everything into it, including his karma pool (omitted from the document but a little bit like Edge) and threw 20-odd dice down; we all held our breath as he picked up the sixes and rolled again... and again... and got it! Somehow. The odds against it were massive.
Also: smartlinks were well badass back then. -2 target number! Massive.
Still, though, I don't miss this mechanic. The fixed target number / floating dice count from 4e on are a lot more logical. 4e made a lot of good design decisions.
2). While armor did work very differently in those editions, it's benefit was also extremely clear in those examples and made a difference.
I concur.
Oh yeah the drama that 2e gave us is some my most remarkable memories in gaming.
I once got dropped down an elevator shaft and was looking at taking a 24D attack ... well we had a house rule that if you rolled a 25 you earned a karma ... I threw everything I could into that roll and just barely got that 1st success and the immediately spent the karma I earned to buy the 2and success and was able to walk away with just a serious wound.
-
Cover does nothing: Sometimes, the DR boost has no effect and the extra dice don't help because they didn't roll any hits / I already dodged anyway. Cover must be heavily boosted.
Drain does nothing: Sometimes, I cast weak spells and do not get into any risk drain-wise. Drain must be heavily boosted.
Focused Concentration does nothing: I can't keep 4 net hits on Increase Reflexes. Focused Concentration must be boosted.
I also wanted to touch on this in further detail now that I have the words to articulate my point correctly. The reason your examples are not comparable to the DR/armor issue is because your examples always give a bonus, which may or may not work to maximum effect depending on random number generation (your dice rolls). That is exceptionally different that providing a dead bonus that actually does nothing, and you know it.
-
More skin (daisy dukes or chain-link bikinis) in the artwork might attract a certain demographic of players. I state no opinion on whether this would be good or bad.
*looks through collection of character Artwork*
*notes ratio of Razorgirls to all others*
Is there a specific ratio there that qualifies this "Demographic" you speak of? :P
-
I have no experience with previous systems other than 5e, so can't comment on that.
I got you.
This doc I made (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU) has a full worked example of a single combat resolution (Alice shoots Bob with an Ares Predator at Long range) in 1e/2e/3e/4e/5e/6e.
My man! My take aways:
1). Having difficulties above 6 in a d6 game seems silly.
2). While armor did work very differently in those editions, it's benefit was also extremely clear in those examples and made a difference.
There were Positives and negatives to the system. One of the big negatives was TN of 7 is the same as 6. But even something simple like cover ended up weird a +4 TN so TN 8 for most people or TN 6 if you have a smart gun link. A fairly marginal difference to have the smart gun.But out in the open it was TN 2 vs TN 4 which is huge. IN SR2 they added a advanced smartgun link that reduced cover mods to 2. Difficulty scaled fast but outside of combat type tests 1 hit was all you needed, there wasn't a threshold of 5, it was TN 10. In play at our table we didn't see that many TN6+ tests. They happened, but the norm was 2-5. And when they did happen it was either a player choice like a 3rd burst from a SMG on a 3rd target, or it was a fairly dramatic moment.
Overall I prefer the static TN. Though I think choosing a TN of 5 was a mistake as it creates a need for too large of a pool difference to start seeing effects. Also instead of varying dice pools based on penalties and difficulty I would have preferred if what changed more was number of hits needed. If you always roll 14 dice for your firearms test tell the DM i got 6 hits and the DM has a base number to hit based on a dodge test modified by your long range, visibility etc and the lets you know how many net it would be quicker and easier IMO.