Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-20-19/1954:55>
-
For me I think this is a kind of big issue.
Mechanically there is no reason to play humans. Every other option is just flat out better. Not only is that a balance issue but it’s a setting issue. In a world where like 60% is supposed to be human 0% of the pcs being human seems weird unless that’s a story point which it isn’t in shadowrun
Am I seeing this wrong is their some hidden human perk. If not are there any ideas people have to fix this for their campaigns. Yes yes people might take them for role playing reasons. But just don’t like I don’t want to fix things by GM fiat I don’t want to rely on good players to fix this either.
Two ideas I’ve had is give humans a floating +1 stat that they can pump their racial stat into. Or let humans but racial stats into any stat but they are still capped at 6.
-
Honestly it feels like the meta priority going only to meta attributes kinda doesn't work great with how the priority table works anyway. Removing that rule both fixes humans and helps non-trolls out quite a bit. May need to rejigger things so humans get a bit more for their pick, maybe elves and orks too, but the problem with the meta table seems like it could be fixed by gently smacking it about.
-
I personally believe that all of the priority chart, metatype point uses, and what can and cannot be purchased at character generation is in need of serious re-evaluation. I think we all know that will not be happening though.
There are a number of House rules that can make all of that better, but I am not really as interested in making house rules as I am in seeing what catalyst does from here.
-
Yeah, they pretty much set up humans to only be able to dump all their special attributes into Edge. And the only reason they exist at Priority C is so they can max magic/resonance and still start at Edge 4.
Mechanically, it means all human (D priority) mundanes (E priority) are starting with 5 Edge, and skills/attributes/resources are fighting for top slots.
More specifically, the seeming best build platform for human mundanes is:
A: Resources (450,000¥)
B: Attributes (16)
C: Skills (20)
D: Metatype (Human 5)
E: Magic/Resonance (Mundane)
It allows for all the street sam/decker/rigger builds to start out super cybered up and with tons of toys, while still having skills to be useful across the board.
-
I'm wondering if the design idea behind having the priority tables is just for tradition's sake. Like one of the first companion books will be "here's the game alternatives, and different ways for character generation!" I mean, we know the Life Modules are on their way, since they are in the 6E No Future rules.
I like how the game is getting streamlined, but even I have to admit, I don't know how much I'm going to try and convince my group to play until the Magic/Matrix/Cyber/Rigger/Life books are out. And that kinda makes me sad that it's just expected to have six books to properly play the game.
-
If you want a bit of Edge there isn't much downside for taking Human if your Metatype choice is E or D. Lowlight/Thermal contacts are 500 Nuyen. Built tough is a 4 Karma quality.
If minor mechanical bonuses are all that matter than every PC will be a Troll.
The mechanical difference between Metatypes in 6th is much less than in 5th. IMO this is an improvement. YMMV.
-
2 quick house rule I can think of.
1. Nerf option, every metatype had to paid karma for their free positive quality (not free now).
2.1 Big buff option, human start with 2 edge.
2.2 Small buff option, human can spend metatype point on anythings.
-
Humans are doing pretty good in 6we.
Any character that has metatype at C - E can be built either as any meta or as a human.
Do it.
Build some characters. See the difference human vs metahuman makes when that's the only difference.
Yes, the metahumans can end up with dicepools 1-3 dice larger. However, if they do, Humans end up with a marked advantage in Edge. If Metahumans have Human-like Edge, then they'll end up with Human-like stats across the rest of the board, too. "Human, but with Low Light vision" is not a very compelling elf or ork. And as Hobbes pointed out, while the elf or ork doesn't need to spend resources on gaining low light vision, racial qualities are a bunch rather cheap capabilities to acquire or replicate.
-
The mechanical advantage of playing human is the higher edge attribute.
Starting a combat/matrix/social confrontation with edge is mechanically really strong since it let you front-load your first actions and/or tests and/or initiative roll with edge boosts or edge actions. Starting a confrontation without edge or with limited edge mean you are often forced to wait until you build up edge or forced to only use weaker boosts or actions.
Ending a confrontation with a high edge attribute mean you can often walk out of the scene with a surplus of edge, ready to be used in the next scene. With a low edge attribute, overflow edge will be lost.
How powerful or weak this is in reality I think need to be tested and evaluated. A possible house rule if it seem to be in the weaker side could be to increase the maximum edge cap from 7 to 8 for humans. Another possible house rule could be that humans get to pick any two attributes as candidates for extra adjustment points during chargen.
But as I said, I think this needs to be evaluated first.
-
I'm wondering if the design idea behind having the priority tables is just for tradition's sake. Like one of the first companion books will be "here's the game alternatives, and different ways for character generation!" I mean, we know the Life Modules are on their way, since they are in the 6E No Future rules.
I like how the game is getting streamlined, but even I have to admit, I don't know how much I'm going to try and convince my group to play until the Magic/Matrix/Cyber/Rigger/Life books are out. And that kinda makes me sad that it's just expected to have six books to properly play the game.
well the driving decisions behind going with the priority table was a combination of it being the SR classic but also space, it takes up less pages than point buy which was the only other real contender for CRB ... but yes point buy will be featured in the players splat book when it gets completed ... as well as some other options hopefully. I personally love the Life Module setup.
As for options to make humans have more significance, I proposed to allow them to spend SAP points on anything (so basically they just have one combined pool of attribute points)
-
Build some characters. See the difference human vs metahuman makes when that's the only difference.
Seriously do that. Mages, Technomancers, and anyone who wants Edge will be essentially identical to the Human build. That's a really big swath of builds.
-
The mechanical advantage of playing human is the higher edge attribute.
Starting a combat/matrix/social confrontation with edge is mechanically really strong since it let you front-load your first actions and/or tests and/or initiative roll with edge boosts or edge actions. Starting a confrontation without edge or with limited edge mean you are often forced to wait until you build up edge or forced to only use weaker boosts or actions.
Ending a confrontation with a high edge attribute mean you can often walk out of the scene with a surplus of edge, ready to be used in the next scene. With a low edge attribute, overflow edge will be lost.
How powerful or weak this is in reality I think need to be tested and evaluated. A possible house rule if it seem to be in the weaker side could be to increase the maximum edge cap from 7 to 8 for humans. Another possible house rule could be that humans get to pick any two attributes as candidates for extra adjustment points during chargen.
But as I said, I think this needs to be evaluated first.
IMO, the problem is that humans now start with 1 Edge instead of 2. That increased maximum comes only into play if you actually go for 7 Edge. That´s not enough, not by a long shot. Fun fact: Only Human (9) even enables 7 Edge at chargen, so better play an awakened or Technomancer if you really want to make anything out of that one measly "benefit" humans have.
Might even be another mistake that the minimum Edge got lowered. Someone got the memo that everyone´s Attribute starts at 1 now, and just rolled with it no matter what. With that peak level of editing and proofreading, I wouldn´t be too surprised.
Suggestion for Errata/Emergency Houserules: Pick one of these
- Humans start with Edge 2
- Humans get with one additional Attribute Point
- Humans get with one additional Special Attribute Point
- Humans may pick 1-2 Attributes in which they can put their special Attribute points as well (or just get total freedom here. It´s 9 Points at best and the other Metatypes would get them just the same)
- Humans get Bonus Karma (8-10?) for adjustments. Not that this is one of the most common, no-brainer ways to balance Human characters in other RPG Systems...
Justify it with "human privilege" or some woke bs if you need an explanation. Because apparantly, no one cares for such a thing as balancing anymore.
-
Is the issue here only about picking metatype priority A to get human(9)? Because traditionally, prio A has been to pick troll or ork, whereas humans tended to take prio E. The special attribute points have created a reason to pick a higher metatype prio yet still play a human, but I agree that 9 points are pretty hard to make efficient use of. So if prio A doesn't work for you, don't take it. Traditionally the advantage of playing a human is that you can take metatype priority E.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read the 6th edition rules, but from what I read in this thread, this particular aspect sounds very similar to how it works in 5th.)
(By 'traditionally' I mean editions 2 and 3, which didn't have Edge or special attribute points. Special attribute points were introduced in 5th ad far as I know.)
-
Trolls also start with strength 1 and elf start with charisma 1 in this edition (same as humans start with edge 1). It's fair.
The only real issue is that you can't really build a human with low attribute priority since they can't spend adjustment points on physical or mental attributes, but this is a corner case most builds will not run into.
Build a few characters and you will see that most of them will end up mechanically very similar no matter what race you pick.
It's basically only when you want to build an extrem character when race will come into play.
Super strong unarmed character using bow.
Super charismatic character with high Agility.
Super high edge character.
-
Max Edge 7 instead of 6 only matters if you actually go for a 7-Edge character, which I feel has a diminished value due to the absolute cap of 7 at any time. Also, no other benefits at all. So I'd probably give them a small boost in return. Doesn't have to be near Dwarf/Troll levels, since those face increased costs, but maybe something simple like 5 extra karma.
-
The value of a high edge attribute varies wildly based upon defenses in play on both sides, attacks in play on both sides, combat situation (surprise, ect.), number of allies vs. number of opposition, and skill of allies vs. skill of opposition.
The value of a 9 body for soak or 8 charisma for drain are pretty much always high.
-
Is the issue here only about picking metatype priority A to get human(9)? Because traditionally, prio A has been to pick troll or ork, whereas humans tended to take prio E. The special attribute points have created a reason to pick a higher metatype prio yet still play a human, but I agree that 9 points are pretty hard to make efficient use of. So if prio A doesn't work for you, don't take it. Traditionally the advantage of playing a human is that you can take metatype priority E.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read the 6th edition rules, but from what I read in this thread, this particular aspect sounds very similar to how it works in 5th.)
(By 'traditionally' I mean editions 2 and 3, which didn't have Edge or special attribute points. Special attribute points were introduced in 5th ad far as I know.)
That part about human(9) is just a side note, because it further devaluates the (already quite questionable) benefit of the higher Edge maximum. Humans have only that one benefit, and nothing else.
Here´s how 6th Edition works (in difference to 5th Edition)
- Everyone Metatype is ready and available right from Priority E (TBH, not a problem for me)
- Everyone starts with every Attribute at 1. Strength 1 Ork geeks are a thing now (TBH, not a problem for me)
- Standard Attribute Range goes from 1-6. Some Metas do actually still have lowered racial maximums (Gasp! How problematic!), but these are quite tame compared to 5th Edition (TBH, not a problem for me as well. Troll Deckers for the win!)
- Metas have a higher Maximum on different physical and mental attributes PLUS the option to raise said attributes with their Special Attribute points PLUS additional positive qualities (Low-light Vision, Dermal Deposits, that stuff)
- Humans have an Edge maximum of 7 instead of 6, which is supposed to be their only mechanical benefit
- "Wait", you might say now: "Don´t humans get more Special Attribute Points on each row, like in 5th Edition?". Nope, not anymore. The special Attribute points are the same for every Metatype on each row. The "Metatype" columns is mostly a "Special Attribute points" column now, because the only priorities without all Metatypes available are A and B (And it´s Humans that are missing there, probably because they would have a hard time to distribute the Special Attributes)
And that higher limit is worth drek compared to the benefits of Metas. Why?
- It´s worth nothing unless you actually want to play a 7-Edge character
- You still have to pay the same price in Special Attribute Points/Karma to get there as anyone else
- To get there just with Special Attribute Points, you´d have to Pick Human (9), which means that you have to combine it with Magic/Resonance to not lose the excess
- While 6th Edition is all about Edge now, actually having an Edge Attribute of 6 or 7 is not nearly as powerfull as it was in 5th Edition. Some would even consider it a trap. It mostly serves as a limit on how much of you accumulated Edge you can transition between scenes. Since you can only accumulate a maximum of 7 Edge at any time and lose all the excess anyways, you´d have to be quite lucky to end a fight or a scene on an Edge count of precisely 7 so that you actually benefit from you your Edge Attribute of 7. And since you often get Edge on a test before having the opportunity to spend it, that small benefit from theoretically being able to start a fight with 7 Edge instead of 6 is also likely to evaporate.
Max Edge 7 instead of 6 only matters if you actually go for a 7-Edge character, which I feel has a diminished value due to the absolute cap of 7 at any time. Also, no other benefits at all. So I'd probably give them a small boost in return. Doesn't have to be near Dwarf/Troll levels, since those face increased costs, but maybe something simple like 5 extra karma.
Precisely my thought as well. It doesn´t even need to be totally on par with Karma Costs of the other Meta´s special abilities, since it offers more freedom for costumization. I also like the idea of letting Humans spend their Special Attribute Points on any Attribute they like.
-
It´s worth nothing unless you actually want to play a 7-Edge character
Elf is only worth the free low light vision quality if you don't have agility or charisma above 6. And if you plan on getting cybereyes then you don't even get this benefit. The mechanical difference is not really that huge to be honest.
Not like in 5th edition where metatypes where troll was 'worth' 8 extra attribute points, ork and dwarf 5 extra attribute points, and elf 3 extra attribute points. That was pretty huge.
In 6th edition some metatypes have higher racial maximums and humans have higher racial edge attribute. Same same. But since edge gain during play is capped at 7 that last point might in some cases go to waste. If humans seem weak compared to the others I guess one could rule that humans should have an edge cap of 8 instead of 7. But without actually play testing to see how the new edge mechanic plays out in practice it is very hard to theorycraft around this.
-
C'mon, people. This shouldn't be hard, even for those who have never actually delved into 6we chargen:
For every SAP point a meta puts into a special racial attribute (the ones you used to get bonus points in, in previous edtions...) that's not a point in Edge.
Ergo: Metas can either be "meta-like" and suffer a deficiency in Edge compared to the exact same character had it been a human, or they can basically just be a funny looking human.
Isn't there a thread around here somewhere that complains about there being no point to playing a meta in 6we? Participants in each thread ought to get the others' perspectives :D
-
C'mon, people. This shouldn't be hard, even for those who have never actually delved into 6we chargen:
For every SAP point a meta puts into a special racial attribute (the ones you used to get bonus points in, in previous edtions...) that's not a point in Edge.
Ergo: Metas can either be "meta-like" and suffer a deficiency in Edge compared to the exact same character had it been a human, or they can basically just be a funny looking human.
Isn't there a thread around here somewhere that complains about there being no point to playing a meta in 6we? Participants in each thread ought to get the others' perspectives :D
In other words: Metas can choose to put their SAP into 2 additional, mechanically better Attributes that also have raised maximums. And they would still be better than humans if they don´t because of their additional qualities.
This also doesn´t adress the problem that Edge 7 can´t even be reached at chargen without going Human (9) and, most importantly, the fact that Edge 7 is a mechanical trap that yields almost no benefit in the new system. If Edge would still work like it did in 5th Edition, it would be worthwhile, but not in 6th Edition.
And that "What´s the point of being a Meta in 6th Edition?"-discussion was largely build on rumors. It´s definetely over since the full priority chart came out.
-
For those who are bagging on 6WE edge use, I will say it is designed to be gained and spent far more frequently and consistently than in 5th. So having a higher edge attribute means you can charge up more and use more edge actions more frequently (assuming you can gain edge during your activation via actions, and outside your activation via reactions).
Side Tangent...
My issue is that a lot of the edge actions you can do aren't fun to use. Manipulating dice pools one die at a time to achieve the desired result, or to stop your opponent's desired result, isn't fun. Someone telling you your 1s and 2s now both count for glitches isn't fun. Being able to fundamentally break the game world for 5 edge isn't a fun concept (and one that used to require burning edge to pull off). And the actions you can take while burning edge are way too close to standard 4- and 5-edge actions that you can use multiple times.
Back on track...
This edition pushes humans to be edgelords from chargen, starting at 5-7 edge in addition to possibly being magical/awakened. But that doesn't really offer any variety. Humans are expected to make that up with their gear/augs/spells, which can feel cheap.
A simple fix would be to let human players pick one normal attribute to be their special attribute, so they get a native +1 cap and can split their special points on it.
-
A simple fix would be to let human players pick one normal attribute to be their special attribute, so they get a native +1 cap and can split their special points on it.
Pretty much this. Alternatively, a reasonable Karma Bonus (about 5-10 should be enough).
Nothing too broken, and the flexibility compensates for the fact that Metas will propably still have a small advantage from a purely mathematical POV because of their qualities and the raised maximum values.
Edit: Ouh, another idea that might fit better with the human=average notion: Humans can invest their SAP into any Physical or Mental Attribute, but only 1 Point each. Fits strangely well with Human (9): A mundane human could get +1 to every mental and physical Attribute + Edge.
-
It´s worth nothing unless you actually want to play a 7-Edge character
Elf is only worth the free low light vision quality if you don't have agility or charisma above 6. And if you plan on getting cybereyes then you don't even get this benefit. The mechanical difference is not really that huge to be honest.
Not like in 5th edition where metatypes where troll was 'worth' 8 extra attribute points, ork and dwarf 5 extra attribute points, and elf 3 extra attribute points. That was pretty huge.
In 6th edition some metatypes have higher racial maximums and humans have higher racial edge attribute. Same same. But since edge gain during play is capped at 7 that last point might in some cases go to waste. If humans seem weak compared to the others I guess one could rule that humans should have an edge cap of 8 instead of 7. But without actually play testing to see how the new edge mechanic plays out in practice it is very hard to theorycraft around this.
The benefit is there even if you don’t go to 7 agility or 7-8 charisma. Then benefit is you save points you might have used from your attributes column. Humans don’t have that fairly large advantage.
Unlike a higher charisma 7 edge doesn’t actually help much past a 5 or 6.
Let’s look at the chart e and d you aren’t really penalized much for being human assuming your build needs the edge. Small hits no low light etc. c and above you are. C is also the only time a human can get his supposed advantage of 7 edge. But that leaves 4 points in the trash if you are mundane. I guess suck it street sams.
But hey if you are a elf you can put 5 points into edge for a 6 edge which is basically just as good as a 7. And now you have 5 points to put into agility and charisma. Even if you stop at 6 that’s 5 points from your a attributes you don’t have to put in agility. 24 spread among 7 stats is better than 8.
And on top of that low light etc.
Very specific high edge magically active builds may work out to be roughly the same. But still technically weaker since they lose out on freebies and higher caps. 8 dice in your drain stat is better than 6.
-
So, for curiosity's sake: how many of the people saying that humans need some house rule lovin' have actually made characters? Because I imagine that this perspective is coming from a place born solely of theorycrafting with no practical experience... probably built more on groupthink than actually employing the priority chart oneself.
Too many people are confusing the racial cap of 7 edge for the real advantage that humans get in 6we.
And no I'm not going to say again what the real advantage I'm referring to is. A) I've already said it and near as I can tell it's going over most people's heads and B) if you just actually make some characters, it becomes obvious.
-
So, for curiosity's sake: how many of the people saying that humans need some house rule lovin' have actually made characters?
Well, I (for one) don't have the book, so I can't. I'm probably not the only one.
And no I'm not going to say again what the real advantage I'm referring to is. A) I've already said it and near as I can tell it's going over most people's heads and B) if you just actually make some characters, it becomes obvious.
(https://en.meming.world/images/en/8/8e/All_Right_Then%2C_Keep_Your_Secrets.jpg)
-
Humans have no special racial attributes or racial qualities, only attribute that caps above 6 is Edge. Dwarfs and Trolls pay extra for Gear, Orks face a lower cap on Charisma but for the rest Orks and Elves face no mechanical downsides. If there's some form of hidden mechanical advantage, I can't find it. So yes, as far as I can tell Humans are inferior even with equal builds, because they don't have any racial qualities. And sure, maybe those can be replicated through other means, but I still don't see why you'd ever go Human if you can get an extra freebie as Elf even with an identical build, unless you want to look Human (because Human-Looking is more expensive than Low-Light Vision).
If we had a weapon that had identical cost to an Ares Predator and identical stats, but inferior in 1 aspect, nobody would buy it unless they want to avoid the Ares Predator specifically. The same seems to apply here: "It cost too much, staying human" - Bruce Sterling
-
Alright, one more time... coming at it in a new way:
It's the same advantage mundanes have over magicians.
Yes, mundanes give up sorcery, summoning, the entire astral plane, and more. It's a huge penalty to play a mundane, right?
Yes, but the upside is mundanes get to ignore the entire E row on the priority chart, as that's where magic goes.
Same thing for humans. They don't stress over what to put in E, but now also D. Human mundanes only worry about how to spend A-C on Attributes, Skills, Resources. There's no "hard" choice on the priority chart for a mundane human. THAT is the big racial advantage. (admittedly, this main human advantage would get marginalized in a point buy chargen system. So I'm not sad there is no point buy chargen yet.)
Human magicians/technomancers have less of a racial advantage than mundane humans in having only 1 potential dump priority rather than a guaranteed 2, but Awakened/Emerged humans still have their dump priority advantage vs Awakened/Emerged metahumans who have no dump choices whatsoever.
-
Any non-7-Edge Human Build I can make with Elf and get Low-Light Vision as bonus. Any non-7-Edge non-6-Charisma Human Build I can make with Ork and get both Low-Light Vision and 1 extra physical CM box. So if you go D metatype, there's no reason to touch Human. The only possible downsides are in the roleplay, mechanically there are none. So how is 'I have less choices to worry about' an advantage when they're still inferior compared to other metatypes making the same choices?
-
Any non-7-Edge Human Build I can make with Elf and get Low-Light Vision as bonus. Any non-7-Edge non-6-Charisma Human Build I can make with Ork and get both Low-Light Vision and 1 extra physical CM box. So if you go D metatype, there's no reason to touch Human. The only possible downsides are in the roleplay, mechanically there are none. So how is 'I have less choices to worry about' an advantage when they're still inferior compared to other metatypes making the same choices?
If you're putting all the SAPs for a meta into Edge and none into special racial attributes, one might just was well ask "why are you playing a meta" as "why are you playing a human".
Racial Qualities are cheaply replicated. Sure, a human might have to shell out a couple hundred nuyen to get contacts that duplicate the elf's natural low light vision. That's a couple hundred nuyen as a cost (such as it is) against the roleplay advantages of being a human. Sure, there's also some roleplay downsides to being a human (e.g. the run takes you into the Ork underground) but all in all it's a world built by humans for humans.
As Hobbes mentioned, there's less difference between the races from a mechanical POV. The "advantage" that metas have in chargen is they can pick to be a human with a few free racial abilities, or they can pick to be super-human at cost of not having human-like edge. Or they can have both, at a steep cost of a priority pick. Humans "have" to take the edge for negligible opportunity cost, but that's a hell of a rather valuable "downside" to have given the importance and impact of edge in 6we.
-
the real advantage that humans get in 6we.
There is nothing wrong with your perspective, but what you see as a real advantage I see as nothing more than pigeonholed choices.
-
Human vs Ork.
500 Nuyen for the Low-light.
4 Karma for the Built Tough Positive Quality
60+ year added lifespan? Priceless.
Just sayin.
I'm not sure why folks get spun up over minor mechanical differences when any of us posting here could take a Mage with essentially random Priority picks that could replace the entire team.
5E Mages were OP, and they were buffed in 6E. If you want to get worked up about inter-character balance, start there.
The Metatype changes are a net positive in 6E, IMO. The mechanical differences between Metatypes are minor. You can now choose to play whatever Metatype you want based on RP preferences with minimal mechanical impact. This is good.
-
It´s worth noting that the ability to go up to 7 Edge wouldn´t be such a crap-trap if Edge gain and Edge capping would work a bit differently. Here`s why:
In 5th Edition, going up to 7 Edge was absolutely worth it, at least at most tables. I´d even say that Edgelords were too powerfull when the "meta" was right (i.e. when they have a GM that lets players roll/fight just often enough so that they can use Edge on every important roll). In the 6th Edition, this is not the case anymore.
Besides starting the Session with one Additional Edge point (woo hoo...) and getting one additional die when using one specific Edge Action, the main benefit is supposed to be that you can transition more Edge between two scenes. Which is a. still not very impressive and b. not really working out as way to use Edge efficiently. The benefit of having an Edge Attribute of 7 instead of 6 or lower comes only in handy when you just happen to have 7 Edge Points in the bank when a scene is over.
The problem here is that you earn Edge on a test before you are able to use it. That means "banking" on 7 Points of Edge is a a bad strategy if you want to make the best out your Edge. If you sit on 7 Edge Points when you perform an Action (or get targetted by an Action) that grants you Edge, you effectively lose that Edge. Note that this would already happen with an Edge Score of 6 every once in a while, because you potentially can (and often will, if you play cleverly) earn 2 Edge on an Action.
If the "cutoff" would happen after the Action is finished, that wouldn´t be such a problem. You could spend the 1-2 Edge you earned right on that Action and stay at a count of 7 Edge (Note that this is line of thought very similar to one frequent houserule suggestion regarding the 2-Edge-per-Round limit).
-
60+ year added lifespan? Priceless.
In Shadowrun, like most RPGs, (maximum) age is literally just a number. When was the last time that a shadowrunner died of old age? ;)
I'm not sure why folks get spun up over minor mechanical differences when any of us posting here could take a Mage with essentially random Priority picks that could replace the entire team.
Good point, compared to some of the utter sillyness due to patchy rules regarding magic/resonance and burnouts (raises glass for Tony the Troll Technomancer (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29864.0)), the "human problem" is a relatively minor one.
But it´s also a pretty damn obvious one. I think that´s why it´s so infuriating. Jeez, just give `em a little bonus Karma (5 is probably enough...) for costumization and call it a day.
-
5E Mages were OP, and they were buffed in 6E. If you want to get worked up about inter-character balance, start there.
While I agree that magic is still in need of being toned down, I strongly disagree that mages are more powerful in 6e than 5e.
Spirits are more resilient and numerous in 6e. That is the beginning and end of mage buffs.
Drain pools remain relatively on par between editions. Foci remain relatively on par between editions. Focused concentration is generally irrelevant (in terms of raw power, not necessarily subtlety) past a session or three due to quickening.
Spell damage (that you can cast and survive) is way down in 6e, even considering the lower scale. The real dampener is that mage durability is completely neutered. Combat sense, armor, astral armor, and deflection made base mages quick resilient in 5e. In 6e the only thing they have to assist with survivability is increase body, intuition, reaction, and willpower. While that still gives them a leg up on most other non-adept or mystic adepts (still the defense kings long term), it is also significantly down from 5e.
-
I understand the issue now. It sounds like the goal was to make metatype a purely cosmetic choice, which would be something I strongly agree with, and they ended up giving metahumans an extra option to reflect their higher attributes, which turns out to make a potentially big difference.
If I understand correctly, because there is no metatype prio choice that gives humans exactly enough SAPs to max out their edge, it may actually be more likely to encounter metahumans with max edge because they can spend the excess on other attributes. So if humans are supposed to be the real edge monsters of the game, at the very least, they should (ironically) have something other than edge they can spend their SAPs on.
Of course there are still many other reasons than mechanical optimisation to choose one metatype over another: aesthetics, rolepaying, and blending in; a human can blend into a crowd of humans, which are everywhere. Orcs can only blend in in the Ork Underground, and elves only in Tir Tairngire.
Still, if trolls and orks have higher gear/lifestyle costs, it seems that elves and dwarfs would be the mechanically most attractive metatypes to play. They get all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. On top of that, they have a better shot at blending into human society than orks and trolls.
-
5E Mages were OP, and they were buffed in 6E. If you want to get worked up about inter-character balance, start there.
While I agree that magic is still in need of being toned down, I strongly disagree that mages are more powerful in 6e than 5e.
Spirits are more resilient and numerous in 6e. That is the beginning and end of mage buffs.
Focused Concentration 3 out of the gate for Drain stat +4, Drain stat +4 and Increased Reflexes. Two Major Actions = Two Amp'd up AoEs at the top of the round.
For Muggles to spot Magic is now a Threshold test equal to the caster's Magic so 6 for most PCs. Any Mage with Control Thoughts is now Killgrave unless another Mage is standing there in Astral space. And it also means those Amp'd Up AoE deathballs are coming from out of nowhere unless there is another mage around to point out the caster.
Invisibility is still awesome, and now you can sustain 3 of them for no penalty.
Spellcasting got a couple tweaks in it's favor. The Perception thing is huge if the GM plays RAW. Just Manabolt someone down and they have no idea whats happening until they drop.
-
Mage buff in 6e is obvious.
Analytical Mind and Focus Concentration.
Analytical Mind is basically "give hermetic mage free edge when they cast a spell" and it's dirt cheap at 3 karma.
And for Focus Concentration.
In 5e, quickening can be a trap option because it can be be taking away and all karma will go to waste.
That's why some table don't use it, some paranoid player won't touch it, the potential disaster is there.
6e Focus Concentration is not, there is no drawback, there is no reason not taking it.
In 6e, any mage will has 3 spell sustain at all time, at the minimum.
And Focus Concentration DV limit is COINCIDENTALLY and TOTALLY NOT INTENT, give exactly maximum +4 to increase attribute spell.
6e mage will nearly never suffer any damage from drain or if they do, it will be stun damage most of the time,
because their drain resistant dice pool is so high (21 for elf shaman, 20 for dwarf, 19 for anything else not ork/troll shaman, which is at 18).
In 5e, mage will be risk to suffer physical drain from time to time, that won't happen in 6e.
And that's also making mage the best tank in shadowrun, at lease at chargen because soak is no more, only dodge tank is possible.
With 5+4 Will, mage will have +9 defense test when using full defense.
They will dodge bullet like it's noting, they laugh at "geek the mage first" motto.
Now imagining when they introduce INT tradition in later book, they will have 17 defense dice at all time, 26 with full defense.
-
Well, Alchemy got nerfed. So there´s that ::)
-
"For Muggles to spot Magic is now a Threshold test equal to the caster's Magic so 6 for most PCs." Have the rules changed so that magic=4, priority A is max for a starting character?
-
Focused Concentration 3 out of the gate for Drain stat +4, Drain stat +4 and Increased Reflexes. Two Major Actions = Two Amp'd up AoEs at the top of the round.
Past a once shot session, focused concentration is irrelevant. You will have all of that from quickening for 3 karma vs. 36. There is no net buff here from 5e.
For Muggles to spot Magic is now a Threshold test equal to the caster's Magic so 6 for most PCs.
Sure, that's nice. I don't personally consider that a power buff though.
Invisibility is still awesome
Totally. And little different from being awesome in 5e.
Just Manabolt someone down and they have no idea whats happening until they drop.
Now this aspect of spotting magic is a buff, and a problem. It won't work as well with indirect spells since it points to the source, but the real problem with this is long term play on high magic characters. At chargen using this tactic at threshold 6 (magic) vs. 5 (force 1 with reagents for 5e) is a minimal difference.
In 5e, quickening can be a trap option because it can be be taking away and all karma will go to waste.
I never once lost a quickened spell to a ward in 5e. At worse, I either waited while the rest of the team handled something that absolutely had to be done with subtlety, or I broke that ward and watched everything the opposition had to throw bounce off my 20 something quickened spells.
Dispelling rarely happened for two reasons. It was hard to justify it combat instead of taking an offensive or defensive action, and succeeding in the effort was exceptionally unlikely do to the unfavorable formula of the roll.
6e Focus Concentration is not, there is no drawback, there is no reason not taking it.
Except that it is redundant to quickening, significantly more karma costly, and doesn't permit the full array of desired spells.
6e mage will nearly never suffer any damage from drain or if they do, it will be stun damage most of the time,
because their drain resistant dice pool is so high (21 for elf shaman, 20 for dwarf, 19 for anything else not ork/troll shaman, which is at 18).
In 5e, mage will be risk to suffer physical drain from time to time, that won't happen in 6e.
Other than coming out with more dice at char gen, there is literally no upper limit difference from 5e to 6e.
Option A, you spend 36 karma and come out the door with your drain dice and initiative.
Option B, you wait 2 sessions, spend 13 karma, and get your same dice plus initiate grade 1.
And that's also making mage the best tank in shadowrun, at lease at chargen because soak is no more, only dodge tank is possible.
With 5+4 Will, mage will have +9 defense test when using full defense.
They will dodge bullet like it's noting, they laugh at "geek the mage first" motto.
Other than adepts, agreed. However, this is still significantly less defensive than in 5e. This is not a buff from 5e- it is just the best in class for 6e. Not the same.
-
I never once lost a quickened spell to a ward in 5e. At worse, I either waited while the rest of the team handled something that absolutely had to be done with subtlety, or I broke that ward and watched everything the opposition had to throw bounce off my 20 something quickened spells.
What?! From my limited perspective that sounds incredibly powerful. Was the rest of the table on par with that? How do you even get, say, a samurai to that level?!
-
First: This discussion is straying pretty far away from the original topic now. So why don´t we put that tangent into a different thread (proposed title: "Magicrun is bad, and you should feel bad") instead of hiding it here? Make some noise. That way, the super elite RPG writers behind of 6th Edition at least can´t complain that they didn´t know what was going on down with the great unwashed when 6th Editions version of Forbidden Arcana finally ramps Magic up to 11 (except Alchemy, of course ;)).
Second: I don´t get that need for splitting hairs sometimes. Is it really that important if or how much magicrun has increased compared to 5th Edition when it already was a frequent grievance back then? It´s still a huge problem nonetheless, and its infuriating that it´s still there. The people behind 5th Magic section either didn´t have a any superficial look into the forums or just didn´t give a damn, Hey Diddy Ho Diddy.
-
What?! From my limited perspective that sounds incredibly powerful. Was the rest of the table on par with that? How do you even get, say, a samurai to that level?!
For context, this was my Chicago Missions character I played through the whole 88 or whatever Missions available. Roughly 3/4 of his play was at the same two locations, with the same 30 or so core group of people. No, the rest of the table was no where near on par, and you can't get anything but magically active characters to that level. It didn't matter though, because I knew the people I played with, so I knew when to act and not act, and how much to reign it in or unleash.
I'll post a copy of his sheet for you. I think it's updated, and without his heavy milspec on, but I don't recall for sure. I specifically didn't take him into Hapsom-Do martial arts for Harmonious Defense to keep my friend Mike's head from exploding. Doing that is the correct optimizer choice though, as it would have given him another 34 spell defense dice per pass, at which point he would have laughed off magic from the likes of Harlequin, Lofwyr, and their ilk.
Second: I don´t get that need for splitting hairs sometimes. Is it really that important if or how much magicrun has increased compared to 5th Edition when it already was a frequent grievance back then? It´s still a huge problem nonetheless, and its infuriating that it´s still there.
You're not wrong.
-
I feel like I didn't really understand the "Magicrun" thing until now. Wow. Thanks, Lormyr.
-
I feel like I didn't really understand the "Magicrun" thing until now. Wow. Thanks, Lormyr.
Np. I thought just showing you numbers might help more than a bunch of words.
-
I feel like I didn't really understand the "Magicrun" thing until now. Wow. Thanks, Lormyr.
I don't know if this factored into Lormyr's character, but most Chicago campaign magicians made heavy use of the "Working for the People" rule unique to SRM. This is a rule that allowed you to convert Nuyen into Karma, and after seeing the horrors it wrought it was toned down for Neo-Tokyo. We'll see if it's even continued in SRM now that a new edition is out.
-
Heck my Street Samurai converted a fair amount of Nuyen to Karma. Other than the two "Reward" bits you get along the way, there really isn't a lot of room for more 'ware.
-
Just noticed that edge can be used to increase your initiative score at a (3 initiative score):(1 edge)-ratio. This seem to be done after you already rolled (when you actually have an initiative score to increase and you know exactly how much of a boost you need in order to move up in the queue) but before anyone get to take an action.
Say you start with 7 edge and increase your initiative score up to... say 9 points to go first and then spend for example 4 edge on a powerful 4-edge alpha strike boost to quickly take out the leader of the opposition. For example by adding your edge to your dice pool and make 6s explode or reroll all your failed dice after the test is done. While possible gaining two edge in the process. As an ambidextrous gunslinger you could for example also choose to fill the leader with lead from two narrow bursts, each dealing +2 DV without splitting the pool.
Then you spend the rest of the combat scene mopping up grunts while you bank the remaining 4-5 edge, hopefully leaving the scene with 7 edge that you get to keep and that you get to spend when it really matters at the beginning of the next confrontation.
Analytical Mind is basically "give hermetic mage free edge when they cast a spell" and it's dirt cheap at 3 karma.
Casting a spell is resolved with Sorcery + Magic last time I checked...
Have the rules changed so that magic=4, priority A is max for a starting character?
Max unadjusted magic from Magic or Resonance is 4 (at priority A) and this is used to calculate how many spells, rituals or power points you start the game with.
Adjusted maximum magic rating out of chargen, however, is 6 (you can use a combination of Magic or Resonance Priority, Adjustment Points from Metatype Priority and Customization Karma).
I never once lost a quickened spell to a ward in 5e.
If your GM let you walk around with perfect rolls force 1 quickened spells without any disruption then quickening quickly becomes very very powerful (game breaking even). In this case your GM should probably also let the street samurai constantly walk around in full combat armor and wield a sniper rifle out in the open without any consequence =)
Quickened spell attached to your aura will be immediately obvious for any astral observers. They don't even need to take a test to notice it. Regularly walking around with active spells should attract unwanted attention. You should be singled out in a crowd. You should be asked to drop your active spells when walking into establishments. Local authorities should pull you to the side and run SIN verification checks on your fake magic license connected to your fake SIN (often).
An active spell also have an actual tangible astral form. It can be actively disrupted directly from the astral plane and even from a wholly astral entity (and even if you cast the spell on the physical plane and is currently not even using astral perception). If the quickened spell is of low force (and pushed with reagents or edge to get many hits for powerful effect) then it will also be quite easy to disrupt (as it resist with magic + force + karma spent). Keeping an active rift to the astral plane is never a good idea. If you on a regular basis walk around with quickened spells then astral entities should try to dispel your quickened spells on a regular basis.
Since an active spell have an actual tangible astral form it also mean that they might get disrupted if pushed through another astral form (for example if you drive through a warded garage or take the elevator through a warded elevator shaft). Both the ward and the spell need to take a Force x 2 [Force] test. The form with least hits gets disrupted (which again mean that low force quickened spells will easily be disrupted). Wards should be plenty. You can't even walk into a bar without passing through a magic ward. If you are constantly walking around with active magic then you should also constantly need to worry about wards.
While living entities with a tangible astral form can press through their tangible astral form through wards (by taking a Magic + Charisma [Astral] v. barrier’s Force x 2 Opposed Test where net hits may be used to slip quickened spells through the ward) you first need to actually have a tangible astral form to begin with. If you are not using astral perception or projection then you will just have a living aura like everyone else and you will just walk through the ward without even noticing it until perhaps when you just passed through it (and each of your quickened spells will get in astral intersection with the ward on their own).
The tools are there. Its up to the GM to use them. Shrug.
-
I don't know if this factored into Lormyr's character, but most Chicago campaign magicians made heavy use of the "Working for the People" rule unique to SRM. This is a rule that allowed you to convert Nuyen into Karma, and after seeing the horrors it wrought it was toned down for Neo-Tokyo. We'll see if it's even continued in SRM now that a new edition is out.
Sure, it's clear he's very high karma (however he came by them). But if you look at that sheet as a library of multiple techniques, they don't all need sky-high karma to pull off. A mage could get quickening and a couple of attribute buff spells for, what, 30 karma or so? One initiation plus the spells (if they don't already have them) plus 1 karma Quickening on each.
(I don't use karma-for-cash in my campaigns; instead I allow the players to split the karma and cash rewards from a run non-equally if they choose. So the mundanes can take more of the cash and the awakened take more of the karma.)
-
@Xenon The errata of Edge spending to once per Action allows that and I like it.
The problems with Quickening include overcasting and searching for high hits. With forced buying hits SRM nerfed it, I also disallowed overcasting in my home campaign to balance it out more. But you no longer pay 1 karma per Force in 5e and 6w.
-
Analytical Mind is basically "give hermetic mage free edge when they cast a spell" and it's dirt cheap at 3 karma.
Casting a spell is resolved with Sorcery + Magic last time I checked...
Drain Resistant test is LOG+WILL
-
I don't know if this factored into Lormyr's character, but most Chicago campaign magicians made heavy use of the "Working for the People" rule unique to SRM.
Employed to the fullest allowable amount, of course. I was surprised it was allowed to remain in any form for Neo-Tokyo, it's poor for balance.
If your GM let you walk around with perfect rolls force 1 quickened spells without any disruption then quickening quickly becomes very very powerful (game breaking even).
It was a Missions characters, so all hits were bought. Quickening by itself, with bought hits, is very strong. Once you factor in a combination of the breadth of spells in the game, assisted casting from spirits, and/or rolling hits as opposed to buying them it is most certainly game breaking.
Quickened spell attached to your aura will be immediately obvious for any astral observers. They don't even need to take a test to notice it.
Yep, subtlety was out the window for that PC. He also ended with a 10 or 11 public awareness.
Regularly walking around with active spells should attract unwanted attention. You should be singled out in a crowd. You should be asked to drop your active spells when walking into establishments. Local authorities should pull you to the side and run SIN verification checks on your fake magic license connected to your fake SIN (often).
This was pretty easy to get around with SINs, licenses, social skills from the party, and the occasional bribe. Also there was that force 18 water spirit glowering over my shoulder.
If you on a regular basis walk around with quickened spells then astral entities should try to dispel your quickened spells on a regular basis.
Clever GMs, like Ray, targeted my foci from time to time, and I would occasionally shut those down for safety. Since I could easily survive the drain from casting spells at maximum force, I routinely did that for the ones I quickened, so dispelling them was pretty well outside the realm of mathematical possibility. Counsterpelling + Magic vs. force + magic + karma invested in quickening, then soaking the drain of the spell regardless of how it goes, is just not economic in any regard. In my case it was 37 dice resisting the dispelling at the end.
If you are constantly walking around with active magic then you should also constantly need to worry about wards. You can't even walk into a bar without passing through a magic ward.
I find the bar example unrealistic and excessive (unless we're talking class A and B neighborhoods), but other than that little nit pick, yep. There was more than one occasion I waited outside while the team talked, or said fuck it and just broke the ward and strolled through with stealth out the window.
The tools are there. Its up to the GM to use them. Shrug.
I had it a bit easier due to the confines of Missions gaming, but let me tell you, every exceptional GM I played with that knew my character made my licensing and social life appropriately difficult every chance they got.
I've 3 Missions PCs, and the other 2 are mundane. I'm not saying I recommend playing this way, but I did have a lot of fun both building and playing it.
Sure, it's clear he's very high karma (however he came by them). But if you look at that sheet as a library of multiple techniques, they don't all need sky-high karma to pull off. A mage could get quickening and a couple of attribute buff spells for, what, 30 karma or so? One initiation plus the spells (if they don't already have them) plus 1 karma Quickening on each.
And that is the point. The character had over a 1,000 karma at the end, which just makes the example stupider, but you don't need anywhere near that to hit the "I can't die unless you target me with a deity or character exceptionally outside of my karma total" point. A centering foci, 4 initiations, 6 or spells, and a handful of karma for quickening. The build goes off around 75-100 earned karma.
-
The problems with Quickening include overcasting and searching for high hits. With forced buying hits SRM nerfed it, I also disallowed overcasting in my home campaign to balance it out more. But you no longer pay 1 karma per Force in 5e and 6w.
Quickening is really hard for me to settle on. On the one hand, I feel like it has to be in the game, because mages need attribute augmentation options too.
On the other hand, it is too damn good for everything else. 6e balanced it, primarily because they obliterated the use of just about any other spell you'd want to quicken.
In 5e, I think the best play would be to limit it to bought hits only, not have allowed bound spirits to assist spellcasting, and you can only ever have your Magic rating in quickened spells.
-
Also there was that force 18 water spirit glowering over my shoulder.
OH MY DUNKELZAHN :o
That is, like, carrying machine gun that fire tactical nuke.
-
One of the perks of missions is gms aren’t tailoring the missions and opposition to the party. So optimization goes further than it might in a home game.
As an example astral security in my home games is very focused on dispelling as it’s one of the few astral tasks they can do onto the physical world and 1 karma quickening would be shredded quick. But there does become a point where it doesn’t matter. Let’s say the astral mage is quick and takes down 3 in the first combat turn. 3 out of 5 is big. 3 out of 15 isn’t a big hit. Of course if a astral mage spotted that many he might return to his body and call up some big guns.
But any rule that relies on the GM to fix it probably needs a rewrite. There should be a cap on quickenings you can maintain on yourself. Something like a single aura can only hold onto
X # if quickened spells.
Are quickened spells already in 6e or is that magic book fodder?
-
Analytical Mind is basically "give hermetic mage free edge when they cast a spell" and it's dirt cheap at 3 karma.
Casting a spell is resolved with Sorcery + Magic last time I checked...
Drain Resistant test is LOG+WILL
It´s a mind-boggingly powerfull Quality for its low price , BUT I´m pretty damn sure that this is not intended.
It´s also highly questionable if the RAW can be interpreted as such: Analytica Mind applies to Logic-based Tests, which is not the same as "Every test involving Logic" afaik. The more complete phrasing is likely "Logic-based skill test". So it´s just badly worded.
Still a thing for errata tho, just in case.
-
OH MY DUNKELZAHN :o
That is, like, carrying machine gun that fire tactical nuke.
It really should not have been possible in the rules, yet there we were. Both spirits and foci need a hard cap for mortal hands. 6 is good. And drastically increase the rarity and cost of the foci.
One of the perks of missions is gms aren’t tailoring the missions and opposition to the party. So optimization goes further than it might in a home game.
True on the optimization, but the former is not entirely accurate. Every Mission has this caveat in the running the game blurb:
"Mission Difficulty
GMs are encouraged to use their own judgment, and to adjust the difficulty of the encounter to take into account the abilities of the players. If the players have no magical support, replace magical defenses with mundane ones. If the players are weak on combat, reduce the number of enemies by one or two. Conversely, if they’re steam-rolling the opposition, add one or two enemies to the fight. Missions should be difficult and something of a challenge, but should not be insurmountable.
A simple method for adjusting difficulty is to simply increase the dice pools and Professional Ratings of the enemies. A simple +1 or +2 to all combat and defense tests gives enemies a minor boost in power, while a +3 or 4 will make them truly formidable. Adding to their Professional Rating will give them a larger group Edge pool to draw from, and gamemasters are encourage to use this Edge when logical."
So that said, you just have to be fair and judicious with your use of scaling opposition. I had some GMs that took that liberty with Phain (just adding 7-10 dice to all of their rolls towards the end of my career was common), and I had some that didn't care and just made the game as fun as possible. Ray Rigel, Tony Merryman, Steve Roth, John Siemon, and Michael Etheridge were always my local favorites.
When we ran Dragon's Song part 4, the party egged me on to see if I could handle the great western dragon Paletooth solo, so I went for it. That thing roasting to a force 24 lightning bolt was the session Steve (in very excellent humor) stopped bothering to ramp up the opposition. It was one of the few times I really unleashed playing him.
Are quickened spells already in 6e or is that magic book fodder?
Yeah, but the only spells worth doing are attributes and maybe 1 DR spell. So it's still very good for the edition, but nowhere near the impact it could potentially have in 5e.
-
It´s a mind-boggingly powerfull Quality for its low price , BUT I´m pretty damn sure that this is not intended.
It´s also highly questionable if the RAW can be interpreted as such: Analytica Mind applies to Logic-based Tests, which is not the same as "Every test involving Logic" afaik. The more complete phrasing is likely "Logic-based skill test". So it´s just badly worded. Still a thing for errata tho, just in case.
Oh, drain resistant test is not even the worst offender for Analytical Mind abuse.
Memory test is also LOG base test, gain edge by having some flashback in your head, like in cartoon/anime.
And Knowledge skills is skill test too you know..... ::)
-
Analytical Mind no doubt will be hit by a nerf bat so I'm not that worried about it.
-
It´s a mind-boggingly powerfull Quality for its low price , BUT I´m pretty damn sure that this is not intended.
It´s also highly questionable if the RAW can be interpreted as such: Analytica Mind applies to Logic-based Tests, which is not the same as "Every test involving Logic" afaik. The more complete phrasing is likely "Logic-based skill test". So it´s just badly worded. Still a thing for errata tho, just in case.
Oh, drain resistant test is not even the worst offender for Analytical Mind abuse.
Memory test is also LOG base test, gain edge by having some flashback in your head, like in cartoon/anime.
And Knowledge skills is skill test too you know..... ::)
Hell most hacking tests are logic. Add in some other edge gain and deckers are always getting 2 edge a turn.
-
So that said, you just have to be fair and judicious with your use of scaling opposition. I had some GMs that took that liberty with Phain (just adding 7-10 dice to all of their rolls towards the end of my career was common), and I had some that didn't care and just made the game as fun as possible. Ray Rigel, Tony Merryman, Steve Roth, John Siemon, and Michael Etheridge were always my local favorites.
I didn't realize you were local, we probably played together some at Fog of Dusk then. I didn't run there since that was the only time I got to play. Ray or Micheal usually ran the tables I played at
-
I didn't realize you were local, we probably played together some at Fog of Dusk then. I didn't run there since that was the only time I got to play. Ray or Micheal usually ran the tables I played at
That might well be! If we did, and I forgot you, I do apologize! I came in right at the end of FoD before the move to BTB, winter of 2014 I think it was?
-
I didn't realize you were local, we probably played together some at Fog of Dusk then. I didn't run there since that was the only time I got to play. Ray or Micheal usually ran the tables I played at
That might well be! If we did, and I forgot you, I do apologize! I came in right at the end of FoD before the move to BTB, winter of 2014 I think it was?
maybe a bit later ... I quit going about the time Micheal moved and Ray quit running there, have not been to BtB or Orc's Forge either one for SR yet
-
maybe a bit later ... I quit going about the time Micheal moved and Ray quit running there, have not been to BtB or Orc's Forge either one for SR yet
Michael actually got me into it. I used to do a vampire larp with him a very long time ago, so he was an ooooold connection. Thinking about it makes me feel ancient, geez.
I didn't meet Ray until BtB. Ray was my favorite for consistency and fairness, Michael for making my social life hell "you got a license for that there spirit, boy!?", and Tony for not giving a single F and doing anything to make the table have a blast. His rendition of Friendship is Tragic was amazing.
-
...and deckers are always getting 2 edge a turn.
Remember one of the live videos explaining that you get edge for hot-sim hacking.
Can't find that when flipping through the pages.... is it in there somewhere?
-
...and deckers are always getting 2 edge a turn.
Remember one of the live videos explaining that you get edge for hot-sim hacking.
Can't find that when flipping through the pages.... is it in there somewhere?
So a hot sim analytical mind decker is rocking 2 edge a turn every turn. At the max without even trying to set things up.
-
...and deckers are always getting 2 edge a turn.
Remember one of the live videos explaining that you get edge for hot-sim hacking.
Can't find that when flipping through the pages.... is it in there somewhere?
I don't see that referenced anywhere obvious. If it's in there its hiding.
-
I thought this was a thing too. Not seeing it either. Must have gotten bad info and assimilated it as gospel :(
Honestly not sad to have been wrong. Free edge just for being in hotsim WAS too good to be true. And it gives reason to have good ASDF array, because let's face it every hacker is going to have Analytical Mind, no matter what its cost may end up being. (for 3 karma, it's mandatory for EVERY character imo)
-
They should probably keep it at 3 karma but limit it to the same circumstances that got you +2 dice in 5e. Free edge should be rare when the cap is two a turn.
-
They should probably keep it at 3 karma but limit it to the same circumstances that got you +2 dice in 5e. Free edge should be rare when the cap is two a turn.
That is the main thing that makes the focus on the edge system self-defeating for me. In just about any situation that you are taking action appropriate to said situation, with a character designed to harvest edge from those situations, capping out is of trivial difficulty.
-
My guess is Hackers vs even moderate sized Hosts will be hurting for Edge generation, and will be burning through Edge even faster than in 5th. Analytical Mind will probably be the one thing they can count on.
Hackers life is hard life yo.
-
They should probably keep it at 3 karma but limit it to the same circumstances that got you +2 dice in 5e. Free edge should be rare when the cap is two a turn.
That is the main thing that makes the focus on the edge system self-defeating for me. In just about any situation that you are taking action appropriate to said situation, with a character designed to harvest edge from those situations, capping out is of trivial difficulty.
Everything I’ve seen so far leads me to believe the edge system would be a great supplement to a system but not great as a focus of the system.
-
And it gives reason to have good ASDF array, because let's face it every hacker is going to have Analytical Mind, no matter what its cost may end up being. (for 3 karma, it's mandatory for EVERY character imo)
This type of statement is exactly why I have issues with some of the statements defending/explaining things. "Everybody's going to take/do X because of <insert pure mechanical bonus>, if not you're not playing right" kind of statement. Like "everyone ALWAYS used monowhip and shockgloves anyway" kind of statement.
What happened to making an actual character? What about Decker's that aren't analytical geniuses? Or an adept that focuses on using a Jian ("Tai Chi sword to some) because that's what his late master used?
Not everything is about pure mechanical advantage, if it is stop trying to call this a ROLE-playing game and embrace the pure "ROLL-playing" aspect so many seem to be suggesting.
-
Good optimization works hand in hand with a character concept. If Shadowrun min/maxing was purely about "The Best" character they'd be Mages and Mystic Adepts exclusively.
Some choices are simply mechanically supporting being good at something that have nothing to do with the character concept. Can you really RP the difference between Firearms 6 and Firearms 4?
Other choices, like what kind of sword do I swing, are assumptions you build around.
I've built Hobbes in 4 out of 5 editions (Skipped 4th, 6th is pending) and she's always been Human, Samurai, former CAS Marine Force Recon, hated Aztek. The rest is whatever the most effective combat machine I can squeeze out of any particular edition given those parameters. Will be again in 6th.
-
yeah, but there is a difference between optimizing so your character is good and not just passable at something and powergame-optimizing where you are trying to beat the game or show there is only "one" way to build/play a character
there a lot of "optimizers" who think they are doing the first but are actually doing the second ... and that is where the arguments start
now I am not calling anybody out because there are very few of you that I have actually sat down and played a game with because yes regardless of how you built the character how you play it really influences how you are perceived ... but the Type 2 players quickly end up with a target at my tables and I have no problem showing them that I can play that game better if need be and I will beat them at their own game
-
As a GM I love a table of power gamers. "... the Magic being thrown around rouses a Force 9 Mosquito Spirit from it's slumber, looming 20 feet tall the giant insect spirit materializes in the rubble..."
"...of course the two vampires buffed up before Misting in to ambush you...."
Good times. :D
-
As long as everyone at the table is on the same wavelength it’s fine. Though some things like 7 levels of impaired attribute I’d rather the group just start with 100 karma than everyone jumping through that hoop.
-
optimizing where you are trying to beat the game or show there is only "one" way to build/play a character
What do these two things look like for you?
I don't know that I've ever seen someone try to "beat the game", in my adult gaming life anyhow (teenage years are another story). I've seen, and have participated in myself, one-off situations where the players do things like "lets see if Mike can make it through this combat without taking any damage", and "lets see if Shaun can kill every enemy on his first initiative pass", and stuff like that.
I've also seen, and have myself said, things along the line of "well, this is the most mathematically optimized/powerful/whatever (insert thing here)", but I can't say I've ever seen anyone try to force or shame someone into playing that thing instead of what they wanted to play. I have seen folks offer suggestions for improvement, but that's hardly the same of course.
I always believe that if a player(s) and GM have reached a point where it has become adversarial then it's not a gameplay issue but a person issue. Asking someone to cool their jets works for me the vast majority of the time, and in the rare case it doesn't, telling them to fuck off and continuing without them or myself just leaving the table of crap GMs always does.
-
Optimizers are delightful people and are the only reason you know anything about the game's design. Like I guarentee you actor type players aren't the ones cracking that "All adepts should burn out nut." Not to mention optimization is a process, not a singular end state, and literally everyone is optimizing in some way. If you are not optimizing for something you are by definition not acting as a coherent agent with rational goals, nominally you have goals and are building your PC to accomplish them.
It is like complaining that car mechanics are evil because they soup up engines to run people over: While Optimizers can be Munchkins, so can anyone, that is just defined as trying to 'win' the game at the expense of other people. I have seen players dive on making everything about them from a roleplay sense way more than I have seen the optimizer trash the game with their engine.
In fact, Optimizers tend to be pretty free with their information and good at understanding goal oriented behavior, because they are so into it themselves. They can generally tell what someone else is seeking and help them get it even through non-mechanical optimization. Getting things is WHAT THEY DO. Most optimizers tend to like to have a trick 'in the back pocket' they can release at the most impressive moments possible, rather than constantly seizing the table's attention, because their cool little tricks and efficiencies aren't cool otherwise. Optimizers literally just are into goal optimization, which is really an awesome trait because as long as you can effectively convey your goals a good optimizer will move heaven and earth to help you reach them. Remember, you ARE optimizing too, you don't pick things at random or to deliberately NOT achieve your goals, you have some goal, be it 'make a cool hacker' or 'use this weird weapon I think is cool and have fun with it' or 'be the best example of X type of character.'
There are exceptions of course, sometimes an optimizer optimizes to 'be' a certain thing and will try to do it as much as they can (ex: I want to make the FASTEST PC is common) but that isn't a negative behavior in most scenarios, as long as what they seek isn't explicitly to the determent of others.
And if you think most optimizers seek stuff to the detrement of others, I am sorry to say that it isn't the optimizer's fault. It is a pretty basic GMing skill to write scenarios that make INTERESTING use of your player's capabilities, rather than depending on them not having them. Don't make a dungeon where Dimension Door doesn't work, but also avoid putting the final room within 40 feet of the surface for the same reason sorta stuff. A lot of folks struggle with soak tanks, and the real solution there is to remember runs are mission oriented, not survival/death oriented, and being immune to bullets is not the same as being able to accomplish your goals 100% of the time.
The main scenario an optimizer becomes an issue is when they are *way* better than someone else at that player's thing: the classic sustaining mage problem where they cast like 2 spells and suddenly talk better than the face or fight better than the samurai. Where they steal other player's cool moments and contributions. If your player is doing that, have a (non-agressive) talk.
If they aren't, get over it bucko, not everyone has fun the same way you do. Powergamers and Optimizers are delightful players when they know to stay in their lane (or only swerve out of it in scenarios where what they are going to do is going to be REALLY cool and make everyone on the team cheer because no one else had a response to that situation) because its really easy to give them what they want, allowing you to put more mental energy into people with more complex motivations. If your hacker is able to trivialize all matrix content, it doesn't matter as long as they are the only matrix PC and are having a good time trivializing said content and making interesting story beats happen for your actor and serving as a good soldier in your tactician's plans.
The other kind of bad optimizer is the 'false' optimizer. They aren't REALLY an optimizer, they are just a player who has a prescriptive attitude to what you 'should' do and can't deviate. Like an optimizer knows that automatics in 5e are the most versatile gun that has the best general return on investment but also understands why other guns don't generally have good ROI and what their upshots and efficiencies are. But some players just parrot 'Only use automatics' and don't actually understand the systems involved, they just dogmatically think only automatics are useful when in reality Longarms, Bows, and Heavy Weapons have upsides Automatics don't, and Pistols while technically inferior in almost every way from a realistic perspective are something you can use and still achieve efficient results with. Like not everything can actually be made fun (If you ask an honest optimizer how to make a fun combat focused character who uses lasers they will tell you not to, but also explain why and point out that a combat PC who consistently under-damages the 8 dice automatics hacker with a machine pistol isn't going to actually feel cool using the laser in any scenario because you just never will actually achieve a result that feels like your PC is doing what you built them to do) but most things can be worked around so if its your goal to use them a good optimizer can help.
So if you make your goal clear and an 'optimizer' tries to shut down a goal ("NEVER make an aspected mage ever!") be skeptical and maybe get a few other opinions and don't let them be overbearing to other players. And if an optimizer constantly is stealing the limelight that is its own problem too. But both these behaviors are common to EVERY type of player in EVERY RPG. Some people into the lore get really invasive and aggressive about what they think other people should do. Some people into roleplaying steal scenes and make things about themselves. Some puzzle gamer/tactical folk scream down people doing 'the wrong thing.'
Being an 'optimizer' merely means you enjoy systems thinking and using the system to achieve a given result as your primary mode of engaging with the medium. It is not any less valid than liking roleplaying, or playing RPGs because you enjoy the lack of responsibility or risk that dangerous behavior causes compared to real life. I honestly think the prevelance of online play kinda ruined GMs to some extent because it became too easy to just pick players who think EXACTLY like you rather than understanding different aspects of the hobby that are appealing to others, because its sorta upsetting to see mostly rational people just sneer at others who 'do things wrong' when like... in reality, again, EVERYONE optimizes and anyone who didn't would be a troll of a player, and it really just comes down to a lack of empathy and understanding why people do what they do.
-
Game mechanical differences between metatypes have never been this small. For this edition I really think you should just pick the metatype you want to play. Based on style rather than mechanics. Even if you like to min max.
Having said that;
Game mechanic wise the only case where metatype really matters is if you plan on building a character that focus on exceptional Strength (Unarmed / Archery) where Troll is better suited than Elf / Human or if you plan on building a character that focus on exceptional Charisma (Face / Shaman) where Elf is better suited than Troll / Ork.
Beyond that; game mechanic wise you should only pick Troll if you are going for that 9 body (because there is no other option). If you only aim for body 7 then Ork is the better option (because no 10% markup cost of Troll and because you don't have to sacrifice your only max attribute slot like Dwarf). At body 5 (or less) it doesn't really matter at all as it will just boil down to minor advantages and disadvantages, but Elf might be the slightly better option for a combat- oriented character (due to potential agility) while dwarf might be the slightly better option for a dedicated matrix-, rigging- or magic- oriented character (due to potential willpower).
Dwarf:
Short size; stocky build; perseverance. Is sometimes referred to as halfer or squat.
Thermographic vision (8 Karma), Toxin resistance (12 karma)
+ High willpower potential (resist stuff, full defense, techno firewall)
+ High strength potential (unarmed DV/AR, bow DV/AR, defend against grapple/engulf/glue)
+ Slightly higher body potential (physical condition boxes, soak damage)
--- Low reaction potential (AR piloting / initiative, defense, surprise, unarmed AR)
--- Pay 10% markup cost but only on items that need to be fitted for size (armor, clothes).
Elf:
Slender, lithe build; being attractive and knowing it. Is sometimes referred to as dandelion eater, keeb or pixie
Low-light vision (6 karma)
+ Highest charisma potential (con, influence, shaman drain, mentor spirit, watchers, techno attack)
+ Slightly higher agility potential (athletics, close combat, firearms, stealth, sprint)
Human
Average size; average build. Is sometimes referred to as breeder
+ Higher edge potential (edge boosts, edge actions, burning edge)
Ork:
Big, powerful physique; tusks; constantly being seen as outsiders. Is sometimes referred to as trog or tusker
Low-light vision (6 karma), Built tough 1 (4 karma)
+ High body potential (physical condition boxes, soak damage)
+ High strength potential (unarmed DV/AR, bow DV/AR, defend against grapple/engulf/glue)
--- Low charisma potential (con, influence, shaman drain, mentor spirit, watcher minions, techno attack)
Troll:
Being so big, you guys. Just huge. And horns. Is sometimes referred to as trog or tusker
Thermographic vision (8 Karma), Built tough 2 (8 karma), Dermal deposits (7 karma)
+ Highest strength potential (unarmed DV/AR, bow DV/AR, defend against grapple/engulf/glue)
+ Highest body potential (physical condition boxes, soak damage)
--- Low agility potential (athletics, close combat, firearms, stealth, sprint)
--- Low charisma potential (con, influence, shaman drain, mentor spirit, watcher minions, techno attack)
--- Pay 10% markup cost on all items.
--- Can't deal stun damage with unarmed
-
I'd say any of the point buy versions were more balanced than this. Compared to other priority systems I'm not sure, about the same I'd say as they were overall pretty balanced but usually troll was off a bit and here its mostly balanced but human is off a bit. I prefer the others as the races felt like how the setting described them. 1 strength trolls don't feel right for the setting.
-
Quickening is really hard for me to settle on. On the one hand, I feel like it has to be in the game, because mages need attribute augmentation options too.
I don't see why they do. Mages have plenty of other options already, they don't have to be able to do everything that other character types can do. In fact, I think it's important that they do have some limitations.
-
I don't see why they do. Mages have plenty of other options already, they don't have to be able to do everything that other character types can do. In fact, I think it's important that they do have some limitations.
While I agree with that, I also believe that attribute augmentation should be available to all character types. Right now Technomancers are back to losing again with the errata change to essence/resonance, which is unacceptable.
-
I don't see why they do. Mages have plenty of other options already, they don't have to be able to do everything that other character types can do. In fact, I think it's important that they do have some limitations.
While I agree with that, I also believe that attribute augmentation should be available to all character types. Right now Technomancers are back to losing again with the errata change to essence/resonance, which is unacceptable.
Not really. IMO, the main benefit to TMs in 6e is you can skip the Cyberdeck/Cyberjack. Sprites and threading are really just optional "add ons". There are things there if you build for them, but if you roll with Resonance 1 or 2 you're just fine. Complex Forms Editor, Puppeteer and Emulate Program work the same at Resonance 1 or 20.
Throw a D in Resonance. Toss a couple Adjustment points at it, take your Cerebral boosters, whatever initiative boost you need, maybe Muscle Toner. Muscle Replacement possibly even. Maybe grab the Tasking skill, maybe not, totally optional now. Pick a couple programs to Emulate if you picked up Focused Concentration. Carry on.
Nothing to do with Humans though I suppose...
-
I was speaking strictly in terms of attribute augmentation options that don't reduce resonance (of which they currently have no permanent options).
-
I was speaking strictly in terms of attribute augmentation options that don't reduce resonance (of which they currently have no permanent options).
Haven’t seen 6e anything yet so I can’t reallt comment on technomancer. But as a general rule stat enhancements did more for them in previous editions. If you could give them straight +4s they’d of had the best deck in town in their head.
For mages I don’t think they need to have attribute spells up all the time. In fact I think they should have it less than anyone. The whole point of augmented types is they augment themselves. Mages getting it as an almost free add on doesn’t sit well with me. I wish focussed concentration just reduced the penalty to 1 per spell like it used to in 2e/3e and quickening was limited to 1 spell per aura it was attached to like no edition yet, but it’s the only thing that seems balanced given the investment cost.
-
Well while I do think every archetype should have permanent options, they do not all need every option. Ware and adept powers might exclusively focus on physical augmentation (which they primarily do). Magic and submersion may be more focus on mental augmentation, ect.
Magic still needs revamped to be more fair, absolutely, but I personally believe that is largely unrelated to attribute augmentation, and more related to foci cheese and unlimited potential.
-
Focus cheese is definitely a issue. Given the new systems edge focus I’m surprised they didn’t take the opportunity it just have it provide bonus edge. I guess in theory unlimited potential is as well though I have never seen it even get close to being one.
Though, I’ve always thought they should have added a version of initiation and essence raising for mundanes.
The changes I’d of tried to push and play test if I were involved in making 6e would be only magically active/resonance types lose essence from ware. Mundanes done. A persons essence rating is a limit to how much ware their body can tolerate. Which would limit magically active types to 3 essence in ware, there essence went don’t decreasing that limit.
And mundanes would have access to a version of initiation and essence raising call it tolerance or something. They’d get “ metamagics”that allowed them to get more out of their already existing ware like bump it ratings without having to buy it have it perform past factory specs etc.
That way everyone has a version of unlimited advancement. And mundanes would always have places to spend karma that is around their character instead of I’ve maxed my go to skills I guess I’ll learn botany or something.
-
And mundanes would have access to a version of initiation and essence raising call it tolerance or something. They’d get “ metamagics”that allowed them to get more out of their already existing ware like bump it ratings without having to buy it have it perform past factory specs etc.
Although this costs karma rather than nuyen -- isn't this basically the same as upgrading ware from alpha to beta to delta? That's how I've always played the street sam's progression path. Upgrade the cyber they have, creating essence holes for even more cyber.
-
And mundanes would have access to a version of initiation and essence raising call it tolerance or something. They’d get “ metamagics”that allowed them to get more out of their already existing ware like bump it ratings without having to buy it have it perform past factory specs etc.
Although this costs karma rather than nuyen -- isn't this basically the same as upgrading ware from alpha to beta to delta? That's how I've always played the street sam's progression path. Upgrade the cyber they have, creating essence holes for even more cyber.
Yes. But if done through karma it balances karma/nuyen among the archetypes and it helps with the weird situations where upgrading to delta is cheaper than retiring with a high lifestyle.
-
Fair enough. I address those problems differently (I award karma and nuyen as a pool, and allow players to take unequal shares; and I hand out access to beta/delta cyberware as run rewards at appropriate points.)
-
Yeah in play GMs can do things like that t even if out or make setting sense. But I think the more the system moves to a unified growth mechanic the better for it is. You want cyber to feel distinct from magic but without one type having a huge edge. It’s hard to balance.
That being said most of this is theoretical for most games. As is full delta everything the right qualities etc you can probably squeeze 15 ish essence of ware into a person. Never saw close to that or close to a 15 magic rating. But I’m sure despite being rare there are campaigns that go long enough for that. And for others just the idea of unlimited for mages even if never realized is a issue. Like I’m 1e d&d how many campaigns made it to level 15+ where magic users dominated. I had I think 3 campaigns in 25 years of 1/2e d&d where mages dipped into super high level land.
-
But I think the more the system moves to a unified growth mechanic the better for it is. You want cyber to feel distinct from magic but without one type having a huge edge. It’s hard to balance.
True, true. I don't disagree. It's not the worst pain point I have with SR but I'd prefer something that worked as you describe.
But I’m sure despite being rare there are campaigns that go long enough for that. And for others just the idea of unlimited for mages even if never realized is a issue.
I think this is quite real. Most players, even subconsciously, are going to realise that mages have by far the longest runway of any archetype - and even if that's entirely theoretical, even if your campaign will never get to the point it matters, it still contributes to the feeling of imbalance that is often summarised as "magicrun." A feeling I share.
-
But I think the more the system moves to a unified growth mechanic the better for it is. You want cyber to feel distinct from magic but without one type having a huge edge. It’s hard to balance.
True, true. I don't disagree. It's not the worst pain point I have with SR but I'd prefer something that worked as you describe.
But I’m sure despite being rare there are campaigns that go long enough for that. And for others just the idea of unlimited for mages even if never realized is a issue.
I think this is quite real. Most players, even subconsciously, are going to realise that mages have by far the longest runway of any archetype - and even if that's entirely theoretical, even if your campaign will never get to the point it matters, it still contributes to the feeling of imbalance that is often summarised as "magicrun." A feeling I share.
Yeah, I find hypothetical concerns to be less impacting to enjoyment of a game over concerns that arise in a majority of actual play. That being said, if a campaign went where a mage got up to 20 Magic and crazy foci...pretty sure Dragons, Free Spirits, Immortal Elves, and Terrors would have taken notice. Especially if they achieve this when Mana is still in the relatively early stages of rising.
-
Yeah, I find hypothetical concerns to be less impacting to enjoyment of a game over concerns that arise in a majority of actual play. That being said, if a campaign went where a mage got up to 20 Magic and crazy foci...pretty sure Dragons, Free Spirits, Immortal Elves, and Terrors would have taken notice. Especially if they achieve this when Mana is still in the relatively early stages of rising.
The concerns aren't only hypothetical, though. About 50 karma into a campaign, you could have a mage character walking around with permanent buffs granting +4 dice to their key stats (including +8 dice on their drain dice pool), 4d6 init dice, and multiple F6-9 spirits on call who are throwing 25-35 dice to defend (plus hardened armour) and 15-20 dice to attack.
-
Yeah, I find hypothetical concerns to be less impacting to enjoyment of a game over concerns that arise in a majority of actual play. That being said, if a campaign went where a mage got up to 20 Magic and crazy foci...pretty sure Dragons, Free Spirits, Immortal Elves, and Terrors would have taken notice. Especially if they achieve this when Mana is still in the relatively early stages of rising.
The concerns aren't only hypothetical, though. About 50 karma into a campaign, you could have a mage character walking around with permanent buffs granting +4 dice to their key stats (including +8 dice on their drain dice pool), 4d6 init dice, and multiple F6-9 spirits on call who are throwing 25-35 dice to defend (plus hardened armour) and 15-20 dice to attack.
Yup. Play with optimizers and it’s a issue that comes up quick. They weakened a bunch of spells I assume to try and curb this. Personally I think they identified the wrong part of the problem. It’s not spells like combat sense existing and being useful. It’s the multiple ways to sustain spells without penalty. Focussed concentration should reduce the penalty not remove it for up to 3 spells.(it turns it into the maintain 3 buff spells quality. If it reduced penalties you’d see people use it for keeping masks up on the party more instead)Sustaining focusses and quickening should have a hard limit on how many that can be put on one person and that limit shouldn’t stack or 1/2 the limit you want so when they stack it gets to your limit.
-
Yup. Play with optimizers and it’s a issue that comes up quick.
I'm writing a doc right now that compares 2e and 5e from the perspective of "MagicRun" and some of the differences are eye opening. But not where I expected them to be; for example, I had forgotten that both sustain foci ("Spell Locks") and Quickening existed in 2e (although Spell Locks came with a crippling handicap and Quickening cost a lot more Karma.)
Sneak peek:
-
Yup. Play with optimizers and it’s a issue that comes up quick.
I'm writing a doc right now that compares 2e and 5e from the perspective of "MagicRun" and some of the differences are eye opening. But not where I expected them to be; for example, I had forgotten that both sustain foci ("Spell Locks") and Quickening existed in 2e (although Spell Locks came with a crippling handicap and Quickening cost a lot more Karma.)
Sneak peek:
Due to that handicap they didn’t get used much at all in my campaigns. Most mages went on 5 or 6+ 1d6. Some got to 2d6 with BioWare, dropping heir magic by 1 but that was it. Very few focuses over the years and very little quickening. Some people gambled on it once their masking was solid enough that they thought they could conceal it. But it usually backfired eventually. Grounding was awesome Imo. Its just the attack should have stopped at the mage and not exploded into the world.
-
Yeah, I find hypothetical concerns to be less impacting to enjoyment of a game over concerns that arise in a majority of actual play. That being said, if a campaign went where a mage got up to 20 Magic and crazy foci...pretty sure Dragons, Free Spirits, Immortal Elves, and Terrors would have taken notice. Especially if they achieve this when Mana is still in the relatively early stages of rising.
The concerns aren't only hypothetical, though. About 50 karma into a campaign, you could have a mage character walking around with permanent buffs granting +4 dice to their key stats (including +8 dice on their drain dice pool), 4d6 init dice, and multiple F6-9 spirits on call who are throwing 25-35 dice to defend (plus hardened armour) and 15-20 dice to attack.
This only happens as a result of poor GMing. You want to walk around decked out in all these spells? Ok. Well, they're obvious to everyone that sees you, so that's a thing. Local law enforcement is going to take an interest in you. And not just the street cops, but the magical enforcement division...and maybe the national guard. Hope those spells are legal. Even if they are (arguably) legal, why are you decked out like that? Better keep an eye on you. Forget about even stepping foot near areas with any kind of security rating, they already know about you. You can't pass through wards, spirits of all kinds are drawn to you, and anyone with more mojo than you in the area certainly is aware of your every movement.
Hope you've got a contact willing to feed work to someone with absolutely no sense of the covert, because no one else will.
-
My players got spooked in SR5 when they had to try to get through a Ward with a cop nearby. In SR6 they would face alerting the ward creator on a single failure too.
-
As an aside I like how pushing through a ward successfully does not alert the creator in 6e. One of the few positives in the magic section for me. About the only advantage full mages had was astral projection but if you needed 2 meta Magics to scout past a ward without setting off a alarm it kind of fell flat as a perk.
This is how almost every astral scout session went in our games. You see the outside of the target it has a ward. The end.
Now people might try to push through.
I wish the description of the astral would roll back a few editions where non living things were more in grey scale vs shadowy blobs but I can ignore that easily enough.
-
If you could give them straight +4s they’d of had the best deck in town in their head.
SR6 p. 189 The Living Persona
A technomancer’s living persona has Matrix attributes based on their Mental attributes (as below) plus a number of bonus points equal to their Resonance. A single attribute cannot be raised by more than 50 percent of its base rating (rounded up, to a maximum of +4). Example: A technomancer with a Logic of 5 and a Resonance of 4 could increase their Data Processing to 8 by spending three points (half of their Logic 5, rounded up). Bonus points can be moved between two attributes with a Reconfigure Matrix Attribute action.
-
If you could give them straight +4s they’d of had the best deck in town in their head.
SR6 p. 189 The Living Persona
A technomancer’s living persona has Matrix attributes based on their Mental attributes (as below) plus a number of bonus points equal to their Resonance. A single attribute cannot be raised by more than 50 percent of its base rating (rounded up, to a maximum of +4). Example: A technomancer with a Logic of 5 and a Resonance of 4 could increase their Data Processing to 8 by spending three points (half of their Logic 5, rounded up). Bonus points can be moved between two attributes with a Reconfigure Matrix Attribute action.
I’ll have to reread the section but I took that limit to just be about the bonus points from resonance. That if I boosted your logic by 4 that would be your new base logic.
-
If you could give them straight +4s they’d of had the best deck in town in their head.
SR6 p. 189 The Living Persona
A technomancer’s living persona has Matrix attributes based on their Mental attributes (as below) plus a number of bonus points equal to their Resonance. A single attribute cannot be raised by more than 50 percent of its base rating (rounded up, to a maximum of +4). Example: A technomancer with a Logic of 5 and a Resonance of 4 could increase their Data Processing to 8 by spending three points (half of their Logic 5, rounded up). Bonus points can be moved between two attributes with a Reconfigure Matrix Attribute action.
I’ll have to reread the section but I took that limit to just be about the bonus points from resonance. That if I boosted your logic by 4 that would be your new base logic.
yes, the intent of this was just about the limit of the boost from resonance itself and does not count against the augmentation limit ... however I would add the caveat that someone higher up the food chain than me can overrule and say that it does count against the augmentation limit.
for example as I intended ... Logic 6 + Increased Attribute 4 and a Resonance of 8 (submerged twice so far) means you can have a Data Processing max of 15 ... Logic 10 + 5 (50%) ... but would only leave you 3 resonance points to spend elsewhere
-
Are Matrix Attributes capped by the +4 Augmentation limit? I mean like explicitly, RAW, somewhere? I honestly can't recall seeing it.
Because a TM can boost Mental Attributes with 'ware, friendly spells and Drugs, up to +4. Then Boost a Matrix Attribute with Complex Forms and Resonance and whatever and AFAIK that can go on indefinitely.
-
That was my reading as well. But it’s easy enough to get things wrong on a first pass through the rules.
-
Physical, Mental and Special (but not Matrix) attributes as well as Skills are all explicitly limited at +4
-
You know in 1e they got no benefit to other than lower on the priority chart, heck even the metahumans started with 2 karma pool but not humans. Its like they have a long history of not getting bonuses or something.
-
Metahumans took twice as long to raise their karma pool, that's why they started with 2.
...didn't there also used to be a mandatory allergy for metahumans...?
It seems like a lot of people have lost all sense of perspective, or I just don't understand something. Human attributes represent the base potential. Of course they don't get bonuses to their attributes. It's the base. This isn't D&D where all the races are separate. Metahumans are literally modified humans.
-
(I would not mind if the universal 7 edge cap was increased to 8 for humans).
-
Metahumans took twice as long to raise their karma pool, that's why they started with 2.
...didn't there also used to be a mandatory allergy for metahumans...?
It seems like a lot of people have lost all sense of perspective, or I just don't understand something. Human attributes represent the base potential. Of course they don't get bonuses to their attributes. It's the base. This isn't D&D where all the races are separate. Metahumans are literally modified humans.
8) you are correct sir, at least from what I recall that was like 1990 though so...
-
Humans was priority E while metas (all of them) were priority A(!)
This was also back in the days when priority A was a lot stronger than other options (resources A gave 1,000,000 nuyen or 600,000 more than priority B, attributes gave you 30 points or 6 attribute points more than priority B etc)
-
I do heavily favor a point system, but back in the day before we used that priority system really kept the chargen power level in check. There was always at least one tough choice.
-
I do like 6we's idea of letting you do well at just about anything with any metatype, without struggling. I'm glad you can be an ork face or troll technomancer, because, hey! More options! Also, I've sometimes felt that dwarves tended to get under-represented, so now there's more incentive to pick them.
But if the good reason to be human is underwhelming, it might end up leading to an idea of "Humans are boring". Plus, considering the Sixth World is a bit more welcoming, "metas stand out" shouldn't always hold true, depending on where you are and who's around.
Though talking about shadowrunners here, being a dwarf or ork probably won't make you stand out as much as carrying around a Vindicator on a bipod, or having a great big spirit following you around while you've got a half-dozen spells on you.
-
I'm just going to add 'Receive 5 bonus karma in quality phase, limit of max 20 net bonus karma still applies'. So no spending 75 karma max in Customization, but you can pick up a bit more in qualities cost-wise.
-
That is actually a really good suggestion (as one of the biggest advantages of the other races when using them to build a copy of a human character is that they can often get identical attributes but in addition also get fixed free racial traits).
Another option might be to increase the saved edge cap from 7 to 8 during an encounter (for humans only), reflecting and supporting that they have a higher edge attribute cap compared to other races.
To be really honest I think they should get both.
-
Oh I'm ruling the temporary cap to 9 anyway.
-
Yup. Play with optimizers and it’s a issue that comes up quick.
I'm writing a doc right now that compares 2e and 5e from the perspective of "MagicRun" and some of the differences are eye opening. But not where I expected them to be; for example, I had forgotten that both sustain foci ("Spell Locks") and Quickening existed in 2e (although Spell Locks came with a crippling handicap and Quickening cost a lot more Karma.)
What was that handicap? My second ever Shadowrun character (after my first turned out to be useless) was a shaman with prio A in resources so she could start with a big power focus and a ton of spell locks, which turned out to be game-breakingly powerful. I did not notice any handicap of those spell locks.
I think 3rd edition removed them, but I'm a bit disappointed that 5th makes it even easier to do the same thing as 2nd. That's something I'm probably going to houserule out.
-
Ironically a 3e player I know actually dislikes how unsafe he considers Quickening in 4e/5e/6e.
-
What was that handicap? My second ever Shadowrun character (after my first turned out to be useless) was a shaman with prio A in resources so she could start with a big power focus and a ton of spell locks, which turned out to be game-breakingly powerful. I did not notice any handicap of those spell locks.
All active foci formed a permanently running connection to the Astral plane. An Astrally projecting hostile mage could use to cast a spell into the physical plane. So: you trip an alarm, a projecting security wagemage is with you in seconds, they spot your running focus, and send a fireball down it. Now you and everyone around you is sad. And on fire.
This was true in 1e and 2e, isn't true in 5e. I'm not sure where, exactly, it changed.
I also think giving mages effectively unlimited ability to sustain buffing spells makes them too powerful (and 5e does that, and 6e makes it worse.) I imagine your shaman was indeed fearsome if your GM overlooked/didn't enforce this.
-
What was that handicap? My second ever Shadowrun character (after my first turned out to be useless) was a shaman with prio A in resources so she could start with a big power focus and a ton of spell locks, which turned out to be game-breakingly powerful. I did not notice any handicap of those spell locks.
All active foci formed a permanently running connection to the Astral plane. An Astrally projecting hostile mage could use to cast a spell into the physical plane. So: you trip an alarm, a projecting security wagemage is with you in seconds, they spot your running focus, and send a fireball down it. Now you and everyone around you is sad. And on fire.
I remember that, yes. Or I remember that you could cast fireballs from astral space, and maybe I forgot that you can only do that through foci, but it makes sense.
I also think giving mages effectively unlimited ability to sustain buffing spells makes them too powerful (and 5e does that, and 6e makes it worse.) I imagine your shaman was indeed fearsome if your GM overlooked/didn't enforce this.
Yeah, it makes sense that there need to be some limitations here. Maybe the spell only lasts for an hour, which means you can't heal the drain you got from casting it. Then there needs to be a realistic risk of getting some drain, and that should prevent most people from going overboard on this.
Drain seems to be very easy to resist these days, though.
-
Drain seems to be very easy to resist these days, though.
It does, that's come out very strong in the analysis I've done. I'm going to expand the doc a bit to cover some side-by-side examples of various other spells to find out if this is just for buffing spells or sytematic across the system.
-
Drain seems to be very easy to resist these days, though.
It does, that's come out very strong in the analysis I've done. I'm going to expand the doc a bit to cover some side-by-side examples of various other spells to find out if this is just for buffing spells or sytematic across the system.
Well, Drain stats are essentially where they've always been. Or could get to reasonably quickly after play starts. Drain stat +4 + Willpower +4. Indirect Combat spells are doing base damage 3 for 5 base drain so arguably are F + 2 Drain code so drain is higher per damage dealt. But target's Soak is lower so more of it carries through. Direct Spells I feel are mostly a wash. No limit in 6th, 5th normally you'd be going with Force 5 or 6 so the drain is basically the same. But Direct spells are resisted by 2 stats now instead of 1, however with Amp Up all mages basically have "Witness My Hate" PQ.
SR5 had Reckless casting so two spells per turn was always an option out of the gate, for a higher drain code. SR6 mages can get there with +2d6 so Jazz or a sustain does it.
Overall my feel is that Drain per Damage is a little higher and the damage ceiling has been considerably lowered. But Multiple casts are now easier so Machine Gun Mages should be able to clear tokens like crazy without dropping themselves.
Good old Chaotic World seems about the same. SR 5, cast at Force 6, 6m Radius, for 6 Drain. SR 6, increase Radius to 6M is going to be 7 Drain total. SR 6 it will be easier to combo an AoE Chaos and a Physical Barrier so that'll be funny for someone. IMO debuffs are basically a wash. They were the best subtle option in SR 5 IMO because you could stack Gravity Well, Vines, Bind, Foreboding, and a couple others. Basically pick two, Reckless cast and lock down the entire map. Let the team clean up. That looks like it will still work in SR 6 once more spells get published.
-
Oh, I meant when comparing 2e->5e, not 5e->6e. Sorry, that was ambiguous. I agree 5e and 6e look similar (although I haven't dismantled 6e's magic system yet so I can't claim huge familiarity.)