Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
General Gaming / Re: Dice Kickstarters
« Last post by cantrip on <07-21-21/1026:52> »
Very cool!  8)
In previous editions, there were subtle but significant differences in how direct and indirect combat spells worked.  While they arguably still exist, these details weren't discussed in 6e and so as a result of streamlining the game, direct and indirect combat spells did become arguably indistinguishable from one another, besides having different dice pool mechanics.  And, in hypothetical absence of those subtle and significant differences in nature, I can see how making a distinction between direct and indirect combat spells can be reasonably seen as being a needless complication...

One of the projects the errata team is working on is getting an official FAQ published, and the magic rules will get significant attention to (re)provide those kinds of metaphysical details that previous editions provided that 6e omitted.  If that goes though as planned, it'd (hopefully) render your idea moot as it would (re)establish meaningful, tactical differences between direct and indirect combat spells. But, otoh, your idea is actually pretty sound on a first read-through, I have to say.  If one is willing to sacrifice certain sacred cows... and Shadowrun has been certainly willing to do exactly that before!
Rules and such / [6E] Direct vs Indirect or Mana vs Physical
« Last post by KabalahRaith on <07-20-21/1904:13> »
I think folks got a little carried away with the whole Direct and Indirect Combat Spells thing. IMHO, it should be deleted altogether and replaced with Mana and Physical Combat Spells.
How this would change the rules:
(1) Page 132, under Combat Spells, Defense Rating against Physical Spells should be normal, but against Mana Spells it should be your Astral DR (yeah that means even the most Chromed Troll Street Sammie needs an Astral DR.
(2) Page 132, Change the paragraph title of Direct Combat Spells to Mana Combat Spells. Also, state that Mana Combat Spells can only do Stun damage.
(3) Page 132, Change the paragraph title of Indirect Combat Spells to Physical Spells. Also, state that Physical Combat Spells can do either Physical or Stun damage.
(4) Page 137, Clarify in the Illusion Spells paragraph that Mana Illusion Spells are better described as Phantasms, they are only in the mind of the affected creature, while Physical Illusion Spells are best described as Illusions, with a Physical presence for anyone or anything that can view the area being affected by the Illusion.
The whole idea of Direct and Indirect was silly, IMHO. Live by the KISS "Keep It Simple, Stupid" principle.
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Edge 6-7
« Last post by Hobbes on <07-19-21/1948:48> »

A human mundane would need 5, but C meta is a common enough selection for meta mundanes if they're going A resources or just want the max attributes possible. 

A mundane Meta-human?  Crazy talk.  : )
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Edge 6-7
« Last post by MercilessMing on <07-19-21/1054:50> »
A Mundane would need 5 Adjustment points, which isn't an option on the Priority table
A human mundane would need 5, but C meta is a common enough selection for meta mundanes if they're going A resources or just want the max attributes possible. 

From my 2 yrs experience playing and GM'ing 6e so far, I wouldn't call 6-7 edge a poor choice and I don't think a wasted point of edge here or there makes it suboptimal at all.  The person that does this, primarily, wants big impactful Edge Boosts.  Either they're a creative player who wants to take advantage of the narrative special effect 5-pt action, or they want to use the 4-pt Add Edge to Dice Pool action to make huge amazing rolls as often as possible. 

There are too many factors at play to call this a suboptimal choice, and anyway the whole argument about wasted Edge points is moot if the team has an M-Toc.

Quote from: Firing Squad pg. 90
one of its primary functions is more abstract in nature: the ability for PCs to use the M-TOC in combat situations to collect Edge above and beyond their limits, store that Edge, and share it among those linked into the network. The number of Edge points that can be stored is equal to the M-TOC’s device rating. This Edge can be stored when a player finds a situation where they earn more Edge than they can keep per the rules. Players can transfer any personal or stored Edge through the M-TOC system via a minor action.
And that's 3 edge for Mk 1, 5 for Mk 2, and 7 for Mk 3.
Rules and such / Re: 6E - The Priority Table: Open discussion
« Last post by Hobbes on <07-18-21/2349:36> »
Min/Max opportunities are good.
I disagree because that "opportunity" is not an opportunity, it's a necessity.

I've seen plenty of disgruntled Players leave a Shadowrun game to never return because of the trap of "not min/maxing" during Priority picks and chargen.

Mainly, in SR, most skills are binary pass-fail skills where the fail state actively makes things worse for your team, which are made against target numbers that you can't generally plan ahead for or know about, which are often opaque and not really represented on a non-mechanical level, which can scale infinitely high, and which don't allow you to make choices to reduce the difficulty of the test.
And this is the second problem with chargen.  Players who know this, go in with a min/max plan, Players who don't know this often make tragically suboptimal choices then find themselves stymied at every turn.  If they're lucky they can buy up something after 4-5 runs (in older editions, I have no idea now how many sessions it would take to bring a 3 Stat to a 5 now), but they'll always be behind the curve of any PCs who were min/maxed.

That's why I enjoyed point buy in 3e so much, it leveled chargen.

Which is why you shouldn't make characters in a vacuum.  Tables should allow mulligans and help out new players.  Have a session zero and give out let players know what kind of opposition they'll be facing.  And GMs should scale difficulty as appropriate.  Additionally it usually doesn't matter if the Face "only" has 11 Dice in Con when the Decker has 18 in Cracking.  The Face isn't taking on Hosts and the Decker isn't negotiating with the Johnson.  PCs should be able to have their spotlight moments in whatever their schtick is without taking anything away from another PC.

But mostly, set expectations, help out other players, let them respec/mulligan if it's not working for them. 
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Edge 6-7
« Last post by Hobbes on <07-18-21/2336:19> »
7 Edge isn't mathematically optimal because humans are either wasting points or short points on Magic because of how the Priority table is set up. 

6 Edge you don't wind up with very often either.  A Mundane would need 5 Adjustment points, which isn't an option on the Priority table.  An Awakened character would probably want 10 (or more) Adjustment Points, so you'd need to be non-human and put in a B to Metatype. 

5 Edge will happen to a lot of Mundane characters, especially Humans.  E Magic ('cause Mundane) and D Metatype for 4 Adjustment points...just going to work out that way a lot.

If you could get a 6 or 7 Edge from the Priority table naturally, I'd agree with Smogg.  7 Edge on a combat character gets lulzy.  But in practice, a 6 or 7 Edge is a significant build goal that will require some (IMO anyway) potentially sub-optimal choices.

Mind you I totally have a theory crafted, Way of the Burnout, Stolen Goods, Physical Adept Gunslinger that does a 4 Edge Boost (Anticipate or Add Edge), for 3 consecutive Major actions, skips a beat, and then has a fourth 4 Edge Boost ready to go on Turn 3 if needed.  But it gives up either Skills or Resources for that trick compared to the same build with 5 Edge, that (when it all clicks) still gets 3 out of 4 Major actions on the first two turns with a 4 Edge Boost.  And seriously, if that doesn't clear the map, you're probably doomed anyway. 

So 6 or 7 Edge isn't, per se, inefficient.  However, the way the Priority table actually falls, makes it something of a compromise for many builds.  Awakened Metahumans with an E resources are the primary exception I can see. 
Errata / Re: No Future- Ford Broadcast
« Last post by CanRay on <07-18-21/1817:34> »
Marketing, baby, it's all marketing!!!   ;D
Gear / Re: Pacifist
« Last post by KabalahRaith on <07-18-21/1448:08> »
So, for Pacifist level 3 in Firing Squad of 6WE, You are allowed to do Stun damage, but if it spills over into Physical because the Stun Condition Monitor fills, does that mean you lose the ability to earn and use Edge for 24 hours for violating your code?
"You may not knowingly take actions that would result in inflicting Physical damage to a target, but you may still take actions that would result in inflicting Stun damage to a target." Firing Squad excerpt.
So, the easy answer would be to say No as a general rule, otherwise this level is meaningless.  However, if people kept abusing it, i.e. Use 4 point Edge Boost to add Edge to dice and full dice pool to rock a Clout spell against a target you have previously hit hard with a stun spell and fairly sure he is on his last legs, and you score 14 hits and he only resists 2, and only has 9 blocks of Physical Condition Monitor at full, and you just put him down for the count with 1 block of Overflow.
Previous Editions / Re: SR5 Flechette Ammunition
« Last post by Xenon on <07-16-21/2014:16> »
It seem as if regular flechette rounds typically breaks up and shatters on impact. Fichetti Tiffani Needler and the Slivergun uses flechette round rules (already factored into the table).

While Shot rounds fired from a shotgun spread when fired, creating a cone of shot extending outward from the shotgun’s muzzle. Shotguns using Shot rounds (instead of Slug rounds) uses flechette round rules (they also use shotgun choke rules and cause negative dice pool modifier for defenders).
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10