Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: lunatec on <02-05-20/1235:01>
-
Why is strength such a non-factor in damage in melee (close combat, etc)?
-
Dunno, but you can look at the House Rules thread for ideas on how to make it better.
ICYMI - as of the latest errata, strength doesn't affect unarmed damage either, but now you add strength to the AR rating of melee weapons (except where noted). So it's pretty useless outside of grappling.
-
Well, that's a fairly loaded question but honestly despite that, it's fair.
I'm also not at liberty to discuss privileged information, like discussions behind the scenes with developers. However, I'll tell you what I feel I can say.
The advantage in strength was, near as I can guess, intended to be primarily represented in the damage code. DVs being some value derived from strength goes way back. Guns have had static DVs since the beginning, and so we've had two paradigms for DVs since the beginning (Static and STR-derived).
What was new this time around was the design goal to put melee weapons on static DVs rather than being STR-derived. I can't say why this decision was made: I wasn't privy to it and even if I did know, it'd be bound by NDA. So, by extension what is new is some weapons having static DVs and some being "unarmed-like" getting derived DVs. Why, for example, are bone lacing attacks one and not the other? (see errata flipping that back and forth). It was eventually agreed that the best thing to do is have all melee attacks work the same way rather than maintaining an arbitrary "kind" distinction. Obviously, the Str-derived paradigm just got abandoned entirely.
In of itself, that's a fine decision to unify/streamline everything but it has 2nd order effects. Like, "Ok, well that was the main thing Strength did to help combat. So what's the point in STR, now that there's even less role for it?" It's something that's not lost on the errata team, and proactive fixes to address that had already been proposed. For whatever reason, they weren't entirely approved for the 2nd corrected printing of the CRB, but if you're a close reader you might be able to suss out how we didn't QUITE get down to 1 unified DV mechanic across all melee attacks and how some cases now mention adding STR to AR yet there's no rule actually saying to do that.
I'm crossing my fingers that we'll yet see some additional errata issued in the 2nd doc that for whatever reason didn't make it into the 2nd corrected CRB printing. Barring that, I think it's fair to assume that at least the intent is to add STR to AR for melee attacks. If you're not sold on edge being a meaningful enough advantage, that likely won't satisfy you. But otoh, if you're not sold on edge, honestly you're probably never going to be satisfied with this edition anyway as it's so central to the entire rules engine.
-
Fair enough responses, especially considering certain restrictions. I, personally, believe that unarmed attacks could be fixed via introduction of specific specializations in various martial arts styles that focus on strength or agility, etc. Some of the weapons should also have a strength modifier to damage (combat axe, not katana). This would give trolls and orc a benefit for a niche and others would have a niche for their body styles. Maybe I am over-complicating the issue, but I sense that there is a concern amongst the runner/gm populace.
-
Well, when Firing Line is available, it'll probably add martial arts options. In the meantime, who knows we may get some more errata that will give STR more of a role.
And failing that: You can also rule that when using a weapon that's more about brute force than finesse the attacker must roll Close Combat + Strength rather than Close Combat + Agility.
-
Thank you for the responses :)
-
I'll also throw out a couple of rules that do already involve strength (which sometimes go unnoticed):
You want strength if you want to avoid being disarmed (pg. 48)
You want strength if you want to employ machine guns/assault cannons (pg. 257)
And of course there's the simple carrying capacity rules (pg. 68). Yeah, you basically only have to go to 2 strength to be able to carry gear around, but still.
-
I believe the most recent errata added Strength back in to a degree.
-
Didn't strength used to account for recoil comp at some point? Does it still do and I am blind and old?
-
Recoil is gone in 6we. So too then is the opportunity for Strength to help with it.
Although, as I already said upthread, note that there's still the min Stength required to wield machine guns/assault cannons. That's a kind of very coarse case of "strength helping with recoil".
-
One house rule I use is to award a point of edge in a melee exchange when one combatant has a significant strength advantage.
-
To be fair, if you add Strength to all melee weapon Attack Ratings, that already plays a factor in AR vs DR. But if you're using a high-AR weapon AND have a strength advantage, a second point of edge seems in place.
-
Recoil is gone in 6we.
How do we feel about this, BTW?
I find the 5e rules to be a pain, specifically, tracking them across turns. It’s an annoying bit of book-keeping that ends up having only minor game effects because characters going full-auto H.A.M. just need to toss in an aim action and a 6-round short burst every other turn to reset the recoil. I usually handwave it away across turns, and only apply it within a single fire action.
-
Recoil is gone in 6we.
How do we feel about this, BTW?
I find the 5e rules to be a pain, specifically, tracking them across turns. It’s an annoying bit of book-keeping that ends up having only minor game effects because characters going full-auto H.A.M. just need to toss in an aim action and a 6-round short burst every other turn to reset the recoil. I usually handwave it away across turns, and only apply it within a single fire action.
Recoil was more of a hassle than it was worth imo, but full-auto and suppressive fire were also entirely too good in 5e. Suppressive fire's only real counter was adept centering and a negative quality. It was like chaotic world on steroids. I'm a fan of the mechanic being gone and the firing modes being less good.
-
Recoil is gone in 6we.
How do we feel about this, BTW?
I find the 5e rules to be a pain, specifically, tracking them across turns. It’s an annoying bit of book-keeping that ends up having only minor game effects because characters going full-auto H.A.M. just need to toss in an aim action and a 6-round short burst every other turn to reset the recoil. I usually handwave it away across turns, and only apply it within a single fire action.
How do *I* feel about this?
Good riddance. Tracking recoil was, rightly, mocked as one of the needlessly complicated things that kept 5e from being more popular/drawing more players to Shadowrun. It was the kind of detail you HAD to handwaive if you wanted to have a smoothly flowing and exciting combat.
Sure, there are people who think 6we went too far the other way in rolling recoil into AR, which is a mechanic that in the end simply says whether you, your target, or nobody gets a point of edge. To them, who place their subjective line putting 6we's way of handling recoil beyond the "suspension of disbelief/line of reasonableness", to them I say I'd rather it be wrong THIS side of the line than on 5e's side.
... suppressive fire (was) also entirely too good in 5e...
penllawen, I'm not mocking you. But I am wondering if you noticed 6we doesn't have a suppressive fire rule, and if you think that's as unacceptable? It, like a mechanic for delaying your initiative turn, is likely to be in the upcoming combat rules expansion splatbook. I'd imagine, anyway. If it's not there, then yeah I'd find that odd, too.
-
How do *I* feel about this?
Yes!
Good riddance. Tracking recoil was, rightly, mocked as one of the needlessly complicated things that kept 5e from being more popular/drawing more players to Shadowrun. It was the kind of detail you HAD to handwaive if you wanted to have a smoothly flowing and exciting combat.
Ok. Cool; not just me then! I dislike tracking any per-person variable from turn to turn if I can help it. Health/damage; sure; can’t escape that. Initiative: same, need that. But 5e’s recoil is too damned fiddly.
penllawen,
Hello! I’ve had a drink. Please bear with me. [1]
I'm not mocking you.
Sure.
But I am wondering if you noticed 6we doesn't have a suppressive fire rule
Hah! I had not.
and if you think that's as unacceptable? It, like a mechanic for delaying your initiative turn, is likely to be in the upcoming combat rules expansion splatbook. I'd imagine, anyway. If it's not there, then yeah I'd find that odd, too.
Aw hell, I think “unacceptable” is a stretch, for either. Did I say that? “Odd”, maybe, sure. You have to balance page count of the CRB versus how often players will do a thing versus how easy GMs could ad lib a thing, I think. Which for delaying a turn, the former part seems more often, but the latter part seems to be fairly easily. For suppressing fire, I’d say it’s reversed; players maybe don’t want to do it as often but it’s a little harder to rule how it’d worry if they do spring that in you.
(Dunno, I’m drunk and writing this with zero forethought.)
I’d be very surprised if both weren’t in this combat supplement, agreed.
[1] I feel like I need to qualify that. I am a Brit / Londoner. When I say “I’ve had a drink” what I mean is “I’ve drunk enough to make my Michigander in-laws whisper about me, but not enough to make them call an ambulance.”
-
[1] I feel like I need to qualify that. I am a Brit / Londoner. When I say “I’ve had a drink” what I mean is “I’ve drunk enough to make my Michigander in-laws whisper about me, but not enough to make them call an ambulance.”
It's noon already???
-
Ow my head.
It's noon already???
Look, the sun’s over the yardarm somewhere...
-
[/quote]
It's noon already???
[/quote]
It's always noon....somewhere
-
I'll swim against the tide and say that I actually like(d) recoil. As the GM, I'm willing to track it.
When 5E initially came out, you needed to spend an entire Complex Action without shooting to reset your recoil. I liked this a lot because it really added to the tactics of a firefight and required players to pace themselves (and their fire). I enjoyed the forethought and planning that this required.
The rule was quickly errata'd so that only a Simple Action was necessary to reset recoil. I didn't like this change because it made the "Aim plus Simple FA" too optimal, as 90% of shooters with an FA weapon would just do that, rinse and repeat. The other 10% were using suppressive fire.
I'm okay with recoil going away in 6E, if only because rolling recoil into AR at least mimics some of the risk-and-reward considerations that require some tactical thinking by the players.
I'm less okay with Strength getting removed from melee damage, as that pushes me past Stainless Steel Devil Rat's "suspension of disbelief/line of reasonableness". But there are house rules for that.
-
When 5E initially came out, you needed to spend an entire Complex Action without shooting to reset your recoil. I liked this a lot because it really added to the tactics of a firefight and required players to pace themselves (and their fire). I enjoyed the forethought and planning that this required.
Oh! I had no idea that was a thing. Now at least that's a mechanic with some teeth to it, as you say. My primary objection to recoil as it stands in 5e-with-errata is:
The rule was quickly errata'd so that only a Simple Action was necessary to reset recoil. I didn't like this change because it made the "Aim plus Simple FA" too optimal, as 90% of shooters with an FA weapon would just do that, rinse and repeat.
Yes, exactly. It's not just that I'm tracking recoil, it's that I'm doing it for almost no reason, because it's almost trivial for players to work around. Shadowrun throws enough numbers around, I need a reason to track any more. The pre-errata form of that rule is maybe enough of a reason. The post-errata isn't, to my mind.
Wonder why that got errata'd that way.
On a similar track, I've considered getting rid of the Simple/6-round FA burst entirely, and making all FA be a complex action. Which would end up in the same place and emphasise that FA weapons are a bit special.
-
Wonder why that got errata'd that way.
People don't like taking a pause in their orgy of death.
-
On the one hand, I didn't mind recoil, and also included the rules of complex FA only & recoil resets after an entire IP of not shooting.
While everyone keeping track of recoil across IPs can be majorly confusing, it's a lot easier of you've figured out a way to set up recoil reduction of 3/6/10 and just alternate between firing and reloading/taking cover somewhere else/closing into hand-to-hand combat/tossing grenades/spellcasting/aiming a Data Spike to (at least) give someone -2 attack & accuracy on their next attack.
(EDIT: Or, if you aren't up against anyone/thing that warrants hails of bullets or are trying to Conserve Ammo, you can just switch to Semi-Auto and shoot one bullet at a time for 6 IPs like it's a Warhawk!)
On the other, it was still another thing to remember, so merging it with the other things into just one thing does make it easier to remember.
But that leaves me wondering: what'll happen to all the gun add-ons that help with recoil compensation? Reduce the drop in AR for going Full-Auto? Something related to Edge if you're shooting the proper way at the correct time?
But this is all ranged combat & strength. As for melee combat & strength, that errata where STR adds to melee AR sounds sensible to me.
-
When 5E initially came out, you needed to spend an entire Complex Action without shooting to reset your recoil. I liked this a lot because it really added to the tactics of a firefight and required players to pace themselves (and their fire). I enjoyed the forethought and planning that this required.
The rule was quickly errata'd so that only a Simple Action was necessary to reset recoil. I didn't like this change because it made the "Aim plus Simple FA" too optimal, as 90% of shooters with an FA weapon would just do that, rinse and repeat.
Ah, that explains it! I kept getting confused about whether resetting recoil required a full complex action (or two simple actions) not shooting, or just a simple action. Because just a simple action would be lame.
I prefer it requiring a complex action. If we're going to track recoil, I'd like it to have some teeth. Requiring only a simple action basically amounts to "let's not track recoil".
-
I think if you only attack once per round (rather than 3+ times), it's not that big a problem anymore, though it's definitely worth considering for if you use 2 Majors in a turn.
-
I'm not sure if recoil has anything to do with the rule, but I'm 100% ok with simply leaving a minimum strength requirement to use machine guns. I'm not sure if anyone actually bothers to enforce it, but it's been around in 5e and iirc editions before that, too. Putting that minimum requirement basically lets you hand waive recoil as being essentially managed by that minimum requirement.
-
5e Recoil was a simple system mastery issue. There were multiple ways to negate it, generally just a matter of digging it out of the rules and tossing some Nuyen at it. I do prefer the simpler 6E approach in this case.
-
Yeah, when it comes to 5E recoil, I just tell new players, "There's a chart that basically boils down to Recoil=Bullets Fired, your target takes Bullets - 1 as a Dodge test penalty. If you want recoil to never be an issue, just put these attachments on your gun and fire every other turn. Or buy a double-barreled shotgun, or a Warhawk."
Minimum STR to wield huge weapons is fine, and is a sort of RAW workaround for that rule that says, "you can carry 10xSTR kg before you get encumbered" but weight is listed for nothing but explosives.
I don't mind because granular encumbrance by weight alone always has odd/not-fun corner cases, and because an upper limit on the amount of C-12 you can personally transport is, in this case, a good thing.
-
SR6 is Str*Str*10, making carrying your packs, or a small car, no problem whatsoever for a strong Trog.
-
Yeah, when it comes to 5E recoil, I just tell new players, "There's a chart that basically boils down to Recoil=Bullets Fired, your target takes Bullets - 1 as a Dodge test penalty. If you want recoil to never be an issue, just put these attachments on your gun and fire every other turn. Or buy a double-barreled shotgun, or a Warhawk."
Minimum STR to wield huge weapons is fine, and is a sort of RAW workaround for that rule that says, "you can carry 10xSTR kg before you get encumbered" but weight is listed for nothing but explosives.
I don't mind because granular encumbrance by weight alone always has odd/not-fun corner cases, and because an upper limit on the amount of C-12 you can personally transport is, in this case, a good thing.
Some days I wish they did put weights next to weapons... it might solve some logistics issues I have seen....
"Let me get this right.... You're an Ork... with 5 STR.... and your weapons carried currently are... A mini-gun... A stoner heavy machine gun, a Cannon, AND a grenade launcher???"
No. Just, NO.
Which usually gets boils into an argument, then a google search.. a little paperwork... and some one trying to justify 1000kg of weapons and ammo being carried around in hand...
-
Heavy Machine Guns are what, 60kg? Grenade Launchers <10. Assault Cannon <40. Miniguns also like 40kg. That's only 150kg. A Strength 5 Ork can carry 250 kg in SR6. Seems plausible, really. Maybe go 'half it for constant carrying, so drop 1 of them'.
-
Yeah, when it comes to 5E recoil, I just tell new players, "There's a chart that basically boils down to Recoil=Bullets Fired, your target takes Bullets - 1 as a Dodge test penalty. If you want recoil to never be an issue, just put these attachments on your gun and fire every other turn. Or buy a double-barreled shotgun, or a Warhawk."
Minimum STR to wield huge weapons is fine, and is a sort of RAW workaround for that rule that says, "you can carry 10xSTR kg before you get encumbered" but weight is listed for nothing but explosives.
I don't mind because granular encumbrance by weight alone always has odd/not-fun corner cases, and because an upper limit on the amount of C-12 you can personally transport is, in this case, a good thing.
Some days I wish they did put weights next to weapons... it might solve some logistics issues I have seen....
"Let me get this right.... You're an Ork... with 5 STR.... and your weapons carried currently are... A mini-gun... A stoner heavy machine gun, a Cannon, AND a grenade launcher???"
No. Just, NO.
Which usually gets boils into an argument, then a google search.. a little paperwork... and some one trying to justify 1000kg of weapons and ammo being carried around in hand...
I agree with you, but on the other hand I have to acknowledge that "the GM's word is law" is a much better way to handle encumbrance. Who wants to add all those numbers up? The GM gets to just say how much any given list of gear weighs. Can it be abused? Yes. Is it better than creating, then referencing, a ginormous list of pedantic data? Also yes.
-
Heavy Machine Guns are what, 60kg? Grenade Launchers <10. Assault Cannon <40. Miniguns also like 40kg. That's only 150kg. A Strength 5 Ork can carry 250 kg in SR6. Seems plausible, really. Maybe go 'half it for constant carrying, so drop 1 of them'.
m134 minigun (7.62x51mm) 134lbs.
Battery pack to minigun 64 lbs
m2 browning maching gun 85lbs (closest thing to the Stoner he had)
Assault cannons are mostly fictional. Especially man portable. however Anzo 20mm is probably close to the panther.... at 93lbs...
m11 grenade launcher 14lbs....
Add in the all the ammo that he was trying to carry...
2000 rnds minigun, 1000 rnds HMG, 300 rnds cannon, 100 grenades... you get your 1000kg...
And, the mental image of an ork, with a 12 foot wooden cabinet on filled with ammo and weapons strapped to his back...
@SSDR
I agree, you get some reasonable people together with a little common sense, and you can suss out this type of thing pretty quickly.... But I have found that Common Sense is getting harder and harder to find...
-
For some people, 100-round belts are enough.
For everyone else, there's the Krime Pack! ;D
-
For some people, 100-round belts are enough.
For everyone else, there's the Krime Pack! ;D
So what you are saying is that...Krime does pay, after all? ;D
-
To get back to the original topic:
For once, I actually like the change in the errata, because it brings a consistent use for Strength to all forms of melee combat. Yes, it´s a nerf to Hi-Strength Unarmed Combat, but that nerf was absolutely justified. Unarmed outclassed most melee weapons even at relatively tame Strength ratings. In fact, I´d actually say that the current fixed Damage of 2 is already quite high, considering the fact that batons, saps and small pistols have the same Damage Code. And not to speak of the bone augmentations (which are weirdly unbalanced as well, but that´s a thing for another thread...)
However, I do see that there´s a general shortcoming of the current solution (apart from how sloppily it´s executed in the updated CRB ::)): It doesn´t scale well, because it´s prone to all the problems of the Edge system and the AR/DR system. If you already got your Edge - or denied the edge to a highly armored target - more Strength doesn´t help. Also, there´s the dreadfull Limit of 2 Edge per round and other edge-denying factors. That´s why it feels like yet another nerf to strength instead of a buff for armed melee to many players. If high-Strength melee fighters could use the benefit from Strength in a more flexible way, that wouldn´t be such an issue. Two suggestions:
- Allow Melee fighters to trade off AR for increased Damage, similar to firing additional bullets in ranged combat: 3 AR for +1 Damage, with a limit of STR/3 additional Damage seems reasonable, maybe with an additional minor action to activate. This is my current homebrew solution, because it merges my previous houserule ("Reduce unarmed combat to Strength/3 (round up), add Strength/3 (round down) to all melee weapons") with the new official rules. Note that this tradeoff is deliberately worse than the tradeoff for shooting: Apart from balancing issues, you have to take into account that firing more bullets, well, uses more bullets.
- An alternative idea that I currently don´t use: Allow melee fighters to flip Strength and Agility for the whole attack: You roll Strength + Close Combat for the attack, but you add Agility to the DR (or Reaction) to determine the attack rating. The "flip" could be announced for each attack or it could require an additional Minor Action to "switch the stance".
Both of these ideas can theoretically be combined, allthough that might be a little bit too messy. Nevertheless, they add some depth, solve the issues at hand and could be easily "patched on" with Supplements/Updates/Errata. They can also be further elaborated with some fitting MA rules. F.i., if one of these options requires an additional minor Action, a MA technique might remove that requirement and allow it for free.
I don´t know what´s coming up in the combat supplement, but there´s definetely some opportunities for improvement. I just hope it doesn´t turn out like in 5th Edition, where most of the MA techniques are just underwhelming dice pool bonuses for underused combat tricks.
-
Heavy Machine Guns are what, 60kg? Grenade Launchers <10. Assault Cannon <40. Miniguns also like 40kg. That's only 150kg. A Strength 5 Ork can carry 250 kg in SR6. Seems plausible, really. Maybe go 'half it for constant carrying, so drop 1 of them'.
lol no wonder you like 6e, a connection to reality is clearly not important to you
-
I think the fact that it doesn't scale well is why they did it. I think they're generally ok with melee AR's suddenly being up to 10 points higher, because it can't change much, so it's lower risk. The crazy edge case numbers are only important when you and I try to tweak the system to make AR/DR matter more.
An alternative idea that I currently don´t use: Allow melee fighters to flip Strength and Agility for the whole attack: You roll Strength + Close Combat for the attack, but you add Agility to the DR (or Reaction) to determine the attack rating. The "flip" could be announced for each attack or it could require an additional Minor Action to "switch the stance".
Personally, flipping STR & AGI is too much bookkeeping for me. I'm fine with letting them roll STR and keep STR for AR.
I do like your idea about trading AR for damage, that's also a good houserule I think. Just gotta watch out for those super high AR's really destroying the curve.
-
If guns can sacrifice AR for DV, it makes sense to allow the same for melee attacks. Wonder if it would make for a nice martial arts thing.
-
I didn't even set the bar high on those builds man, they were the basic bitches of how to get a DR so high that worn armor is 100% completely irrelevant to the game.
DR doesn't matter unless you think Edge matters. If you think Edge matters you can build for high Attack Value. Point your optimization talents at building for high AV. It gets high enough that the high DR builds matter.
Monofilimant whip used by an Adept hits a 28 26 (derp, math is hard) AV. 14 + 2 Wireless +2 Enhanced Accuracy Adept power + 8 Reaction.
Combat Axe used by a 10 Str is 19, another +2 from Enhanced Accuracy Adept power, 21.
Unarmed Attacks by a Samurai.... Str + Reaction + Bone Lacing gets you to 18 without much effort. Low 20s for Trolls / Orcs if they really try.
Several guns have a 12 base at some range bracket, add Smartgun and Enhanced Accuracy you're up to a 16 modified by Ammo and Firing mode for your Gun Adepts.
Combat characters should be building to generate Edge somehow. High AV or high DR gets you a passive way of getting your 2 Edge per turn for a lot of builds, so it's "worth" doing.
I look at it sorta like MMOs where the Edge spend represents the high burst damage moves, and the regular attacks are basically the "Autoattack" turns where you're building up the Edge Resource to fuel the Burst damage. Whatever your preferred Edge move is. Knockout Blow, Shank, Called Shot, Anticipate, exploding 6s, whatever your jam is.
YMMV. But if you're a combat character and you're ignoring Edge, you're simply not as effective as you could be. How you feel about that is 100% subjective : )
What the heck was the topic of this thread again.....? Oh hey, couple of sentences actually on topic, go me!
-
Lol Hobbes. Threads derail easily around here, what can we say? :p
I basically agree on the DR/edge issue. If edge gain wasn't capped so low it might be a different matter.
I have to disagree about AR ever equaling pace with DR, though. Cyberlimb armor completely busts AR's chances of ever catching up.
-
Yes DR can outstrip AR via Cyberlimbs or Mystic Armor. But these aren't casual build choices. 2 PP or 2 Essence worth of limbs isn't going to fit in every build. Cyberlimbs have considerable opportunity cost, and other than DR they're kinda gimpy (honestly they're flat out terrible, ymmv, IMO, ect).
You can stack up Body, Armor, and Orthoskin/Bonelacing. Dermal Deposits. And/Or a crapton of Mystic Armor. Bonelacing (Bone Augmentation) are good deals for other reasons. Orthoskin has no use other than DR. Dermal Deposits are a good deal for a point of DR.
I think ranged AR is cheaper, but has a lower cap than DR, and melee AR has a higher cap than guns do so a dedicated melee character can stay competitive with higher DR characters up to a point. DR has other costs usually (Essence/PP) to really get jinky with it.
And lets not forget, not everyone is a combat monster from the get go. Deckers, Mages, Faces get shot at too, and assuming 8 Body, and 10+ Armor total from multiple sources isn't particularly realistic for all Archetypes.
Samurai with low to mid teen DR, sure, easy-peasy. Technomancer? Probably single digit.
Oh and everyone's favorite summoned Spirits would have pretty high AV for punching stuff in most cases.
So, on topic, if you want your big Axe Swinging Troll to be as effective in Combat as possible, you'll take Str to generate Edge. Or build a sooooper tough Troll with 2 Str to generate Edge when getting attacked : ) But the offensive option leaves the Edge generation in the player's control, rather than a passive, waiting to see if the GM is going to oblige you and shoot the tank.
That got all kinds of ramblely....sorry.
-
Again, I basically agree all around. In particular that there is not really a good reason to use limited resources to get DR that high with the current system. Increasing AR is also less resource intensive than increasing DR for the most part.
The game is playable as is, I am just unable to get over my complete loathing for issues around armor and strength. My Missions character will be a grenade chucking Troll with a massive DR in assless chaps just to highlight my frustrations.
-
...My Missions character will be a grenade chucking Troll with a massive DR in assless chaps just to highlight my frustrations...
That may not necessarily work out as well for you as you might expect.
I mean the grenades part. Assless chaps in Missions is perfectly acceptable, right? :D
-
I'll feel much better if grenades are nerfed into the ground, but I know I don't need to tell you that. If not, I will abuse the shit out of them until more people besides me complain!
Hey man, everyone needs a good distinctive style. :) Under the armor section I am just going to write "Magnificent Abs and Magic Assless Chaps".
-
Assless chaps in Missions is perfectly acceptable, right? :D
For the GM or the players? ???
-
The internet popular term "assless chaps" has always baffled me. ???
Chaps are, by default, "assless." That's why they are chaps and not pants!
-
Chaps are, by default, "assless." That's why they are chaps and not pants!
But not all asses are chapless. That's some Lao-Tzu level shit right there, omae.
-
If your response to 'these rules are imbalanced' is 'let's ruin the fun of complete strangers', I hope to never have you as Missions GM or fellow player.
-
Assless chaps in Missions is perfectly acceptable, right? :D
For the GM or the players? ???
Yes.
-
You can stack up Body, Armor, and Orthoskin/Bonelacing. Dermal Deposits. And/Or a crapton of Mystic Armor. Bonelacing (Bone Augmentation) are good deals for other reasons. Orthoskin has no use other than DR. Dermal Deposits are a good deal for a point of DR.
For what it's worth, an adept can "only" get as much Mystic Armor as they have Magic attribute. So they can't stack it to the moon. I don't think the book is clear about whether cyber + adept powers stack (they should imo, otherwise whats the point of a classless system)
-
Did the "only as many levels in a power as Magic" make it into the 2nd printing of the CRB? I thought it was absent from the first printing of the 6th edition CRB. At least I didn't see it.
Edit: Ninja'd
2nd Edit: And FWIW, it's a silly fiddly rule that isn't particularly meaningful. Why can't a 4 Magic Adept have 5 levels of Combat Sense? No real balance reason for it, either the PP cost is balanced or it isn't.
-
Posts have been removed by the Administrators because they were derailing the thread and attacking another forum user. If you cannot keep your personal feelings off the boards, we will get more aggressive with warnings and bannings.
-
You can stack up Body, Armor, and Orthoskin/Bonelacing. Dermal Deposits. And/Or a crapton of Mystic Armor. Bonelacing (Bone Augmentation) are good deals for other reasons. Orthoskin has no use other than DR. Dermal Deposits are a good deal for a point of DR.
For what it's worth, an adept can "only" get as much Mystic Armor as they have Magic attribute. So they can't stack it to the moon. I don't think the book is clear about whether cyber + adept powers stack (they should imo, otherwise whats the point of a classless system)
On the should side, not what the rules say but what I think they should, I'm on the other end of this as I think the setting was set up best when magic and tech conflicted more. And they should work together as terribly as possible maybe not only not stack but work against each other. cyber in a magically active player should be crippling not the route to ultimate power.
-
I am in full agreement Shinobi.