[Ghost Rigger]

And my issue wasn't that there was literally no recourse to get around this - it was that there was something that actually needed to change if "normal runs" as presented by published material were going to present anything resembling a challenge. I should have been able to have stock goons with stock weapon load outs and regular ammunition be enough of a threat even if players "built tough."

Except lethality cuts both ways in Shadowrun. If stock goons with stock guns and regular ammunition are a threat to bunch of shadowrunners who build hard, then either

• shadowrunners who don't build hard are going to be a threat to an HTR team
• shadowrunners who do build hard and keep building hard long after chargen are going to get slaughtered by an HTR team

Or heck, both might be true.

[Noble Drake]

And my issue wasn't that there was literally no recourse to get around this - it was that there was something that actually needed to change if "normal runs" as presented by published material were going to present anything resembling a challenge. I should have been able to have stock goons with stock weapon load outs and regular ammunition be enough of a threat even if players "built tough."

Except lethality cuts both ways in Shadowrun. If stock goons with stock guns and regular ammunition are a threat to bunch of shadowrunners who build hard, then either

• shadowrunners who don't build hard are going to be a threat to an HTR team
• shadowrunners who do build hard and keep building hard long after chargen are going to get slaughtered by an HTR team

Or heck, both might be true.

This is actually something that I was going to touch on while responding to GuardDuty regarding adjusting for combat-tuned characters:

The desirable outcome, for me, is that the offensive capabilities of the opposition be able to be potent enough that the characters built on the higher end of the defensive spectrum will still consider them threatening (not to an "oh my god, we're all going to die! way" but like, not deliberately standing next to grenades or walking into the spray of an automatic weapon because they are confident in their survival), but not so potent that the characters built on the lower end of the defensive spectrum will consider them an unmanageable threat.

Achieving that is more difficult the wider the spectrum is, and when you try with a wide enough spectrum you can end up with a situation that boils down to the threat intended explicitly for Character A's incredibly high-combat build is engaged by Character B because they're just trying to contribute and now they feel like they can't, but then Character A takes out all the lower-threat enemies in the engagement in short order and all that's left is only the threat that Character A can handle, but the rest of the team has no hope against.

And when it comes to adjusting published material... I can get behind that to a point, like if I am expanding the number of goons to fight because I've got a larger group playing than the design assumed I'm fine with that, or if I decided I like the story but I want to change the power level entirely... but adjustments that boil down to ignoring the narrative because of the game's mechanics (which is what loading everybody up with heavier weapons and APDS and the like no matter who they are, or having the runners only ever going up against elite badasses and dragons and such are) are a deal-breaker for me

[Xenon]

The desirable outcome, for me, is that the offensive capabilities of the opposition be able to be potent enough that the characters built on the higher end of the defensive spectrum will still consider them threatening (not to an "oh my god, we're all going to die! way" but like, not deliberately standing next to grenades or walking into the spray of an automatic weapon because they are confident in their survival), but not so potent that the characters built on the lower end of the defensive spectrum will consider them an unmanageable threat.

Achieving that is more difficult the wider the spectrum is...

This.

In SR5 it seem as if you you have a rather wide spectrum, and as a result characters built specifically with durability in mind seem to be virtually immortal, but also that characters not built for durability risk being one-shot-into-overflow by the same guys that are capable of dealing even just one box of damage to the mystic samurai tank.

With a too wide spectrum a risk is that a specialist might feel that he is a bit too good at what he do and he will become very hard to challenge


In SR6 you instead seem to have a very narrow spectrum, and as a result it seem as if characters built with durability in mind are now far from immortal (and that even a small number of grunts might pose a threat) while at the same time characters not built for durability seem to be quite durable out of the box (and will probably not get one-shot by the guys capable of dealing damage to the mystic samurai tank).

With a too narrow spectrum a risk is that a specialist might feel that he is not special enough at what he do and he might feel that he never get to shine.

[Leith]

Stopping power in 5e didn't make sense either.

If we use the standard of a light pistol vs armor vest we come across the question of why enough net hits equal physical damage. If the net hits reprisent accuracy and we're aiming for center mass, where the armor is, accurate shooting will hit the armor plates.

On top of that, if the stun damage from a gun not exceeding your armor rating is representative of the blunt force trauma that results from a bullet failing to penetrate a vest, why does a baton do physical damage?

6e chooses to reprisent these things differently, with changes born of a gaming perspective rather than a futile attempt to simulate reality with dice. Does armor even have stopping power in 6? No, it literally does not work that way. Will it save your life? Probably, edge is fairly nebulous. But if your enemy has it and you don't, you in trouble.

[Shinobi Killfist]

The desirable outcome, for me, is that the offensive capabilities of the opposition be able to be potent enough that the characters built on the higher end of the defensive spectrum will still consider them threatening (not to an "oh my god, we're all going to die! way" but like, not deliberately standing next to grenades or walking into the spray of an automatic weapon because they are confident in their survival), but not so potent that the characters built on the lower end of the defensive spectrum will consider them an unmanageable threat.

Achieving that is more difficult the wider the spectrum is...

This.

In SR5 it seem as if you you have a rather wide spectrum, and as a result characters built specifically with durability in mind seem to be virtually immortal, but also that characters not built for durability risk being one-shot-into-overflow by the same guys that are capable of dealing even just one box of damage to the mystic samurai tank.

With a too wide spectrum a risk is that a specialist might feel that he is a bit too good at what he do and he will become very hard to challenge


In SR6 you instead seem to have a very narrow spectrum, and as a result it seem as if characters built with durability in mind are now far from immortal (and that even a small number of grunts might pose a threat) while at the same time characters not built for durability seem to be quite durable out of the box (and will probably not get one-shot by the guys capable of dealing damage to the mystic samurai tank).

With a too narrow spectrum a risk is that a specialist might feel that he is not special enough at what he do and he might feel that he never get to shine.

I disagree it just shifted more to dodge. Street sams might be routinely dodging with 18 dice a low end 6 dice maybe less. Opponents designed to deal with the 18 dice dodge will murderlate 6 die dude.  In my mind if anything this increased the spectrum as it focussed defense down more onto one aspect. Not getting hit. In 5e even a clutz could buy up enough armor without ware to get okay on that aspect. Someone whose style wanted light armor could focus on dodge. You had to tank both sides to truly be low on defense. Now with the focus on dodge you are less capable of going low on defense without getting murdered.

Which isn’t to say 5e didn’t have issues. I hated base damage=death on shots. Getting grazed/it’s just a flesh wound should be a thing even if you aren’t a tank. And it didn’t matter much what your armor was for most characters vs certain weapons. You’d survive them but you were seriously hurt.  But heck a tie on autofire assault rifles is near death in 6e so it’s not like my it’s just a flesh wound is happening here either.

Out of two heavily flawed soak/defense systems I’m. It sure which is better.

[Noble Drake]

I disagree it just shifted more to dodge.

The spectrum is both though, because there wasn't anything stopping a high-soak build from also being a high-dodge build, which means that SR6 having narrow the soak portion of things it is still an over-all narrower scope despite dodge being the emphasized portion of defense now.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I feel like the importance of Minor Actions is being overlooked.

It's one thing to boost your Reaction and Intuition so you have a nice dodge pool.  It's even better to have a bunch of Minor Actions for Blocking and Dodging attacks.  Of course since Block and Dodge are linked to skills rather than Attributes, it pays to actually invest in the Skill rather than relying mostly on Agility... but that's another balance rejiggering topic of discussion

Even back in 5e there was a triad of defense: dodge pool, interrupt actions, and armor.  Clearly some had more impact than others.  I see 6we as evening the field a bit in lowering the importance of armor.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I disagree it just shifted more to dodge.

The spectrum is both though, because there wasn't anything stopping a high-soak build from also being a high-dodge build, which means that SR6 having narrow the soak portion of things it is still an over-all narrower scope despite dodge being the emphasized portion of defense now.

Sure but it also gave people a second avenue to shore up a weakness. One that was fairly cheap and didn’t really impact your concept.(expensive armor). 6e has focussed it mostly to one avenue. Not getting hit. And that’s a pretty expensive thing to boost. Skills and attributes aren’t cheap. Ware isn’t cheap and might not fit your concept, actions to dodge not cheap. The soak avenue was definitely narrowed but I think the dodge avenue was broadened.

[Sir Ludwig]

Group,

I seem to be falling into the Xenon and Noble Drake camp.  I like the new rules and think the Orc/Troll tank has been brought more in line.  As pointed out armor has been lowered but so has weapon damage.  However, weapons are a threat now and players don't just go walking into the middle of people knowing their armor is going to cover them from light to heavy pistols (typical security guard weapons). 

If you want to talk about real life, talk to a soldier/police officer that has taken one while wearing vest/armor.  It still hurts/distracts and they all spend more time trying not to get hit (dodge) then standing up and soaking it on armor.

I'm not saying 6E is perfert... I will be posting questions about Matrix/Hacking/Technos at a later date, but I think it was a decent improvement. 

Regards,
Ludwig

[topcat]

I'm amazed how many people believe that weapons weren't a threat in SR5.  Big armor values, sure, but you needed 28 armor value to have a more likley-than-not chance to soak an Ares Predator using normal ammo on only 1 net success.  Add that to massive offensive die pools and options to remove defense?  I guess the big numbers just scared too many people.

Armor is weaker in SR6, sure, but it was never an issue in SR5.  The night our game's troll tank saw a burst-fire shotgun with flechette was the same night he rerolled into a defense adept build.

[calibur12001]

I'm amazed how many people believe that weapons weren't a threat in SR5.  Big armor values, sure, but you needed 28 armor value to have a more likley-than-not chance to soak an Ares Predator using normal ammo on only 1 net success.  Add that to massive offensive die pools and options to remove defense?  I guess the big numbers just scared too many people.

Armor is weaker in SR6, sure, but it was never an issue in SR5.  The night our game's troll tank saw a burst-fire shotgun with flechette was the same night he rerolled into a defense adept build.

Yes, this whole thread of reasoning is ridiculous. Everyone is so desperate to defend SR6's bad combat that they're rationalizing every straw they can grasp. It's a bad game that wasn't properly tested before they released it. Get over it!

That being said, I can't find a SR6 game to play in. Nobody on Roll20 is running it. I want to get in a game so bad so I can torture the hell out of these rules.

[Noble Drake]

I'm amazed how many people believe that weapons weren't a threat in SR5.

I think I missed it if anyone said 5th edition specifically... my comments, at least, were about 3rd and 4th.

[quote authoer=topcat link=topic=30633.msg531685#msg531685 date=1574740502] Big armor values, sure, but you needed 28 armor value to have a more likley-than-not chance to soak an Ares Predator using normal ammo on only 1 net success.[/quote]Your numbers are off. It's actually 26 dice (after AP modification) to have better odds of fully soaking 9 damage than not fully soaking it, and that includes body dice so it's likely to be way less than 28 armor value to get to that kind of damage resistance total.

For example, an armor jacket (12 rating) and a 4 body plus spending an edge to re-roll non-hits is better than coin-toss odds to fully soak this admittedly narrowly successful hit. Or you could build a high-body troll, wear armor, add some 'ware or adept powers to boost body, and have a friendly mage set you up with an armor spell and have this level of damage resistance without spending edge - and looks like then you can still pull off the grenade-at-own-feet trick I saw in SR4.

[Sir Ludwig]

All,

I skipped 5th edition.  So my examples were from 4th. 

Regards,
Ludwig