NEWS

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General Discussion / Re: melee combat and strength
« Last post by Hobbes on <02-24-20/1241:19> »
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.
12
General Discussion / Re: melee combat and strength
« Last post by Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-24-20/1140:09> »
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.
13
General Discussion / Re: melee combat and strength
« Last post by Michael Chandra on <02-24-20/1136:27> »
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.
14
General Discussion / Re: melee combat and strength
« Last post by mcv on <02-24-20/1111:11> »
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".
15
Rules and such / Re: [6e] Quality costs are all fragged up
« Last post by Hobbes on <02-24-20/1033:49> »
What about Impaired Attribute (you are bound to have dump stats. The point system forces you to min max). Or Analytical Mind which gives you one logic outside of limit for 3 karma :) For 11 karma you sneeze when you eat something common. For 12 karma you have to drug yourself every 6 hours :P The whole section is bonkers...

Yep that's the one I think is most broken.  For 30, 40, hell 70 bonus karma you can forfeit hypothetical maximums you don't ever plan to reach anyway?

Rather bad design imo.  It effectively just makes the game "build your character with as much starting karma as you want".

Still limited to 6 total Qualities and a net of 20 Karma gained from Qualities.  It's not like a Troll Decker could walk out of there with an extra 150 Karma to spend on Skills and Nuyen. 

Impaired Attribute is an incredibly obvious "Best Negative Quality" for all the reasons mentioned.  Nerf it, something else takes its place.  At this point in time it basically lets you squeeze in one, maybe two, extra positive qualities while still hitting the 20 Karma gained maximum.  And lets face it the "best" Positive quality is Analytical Mind and nobody was having trouble coming up with the 3 Karma to fit that in.

Future sourcebooks could of course print something godawful (and probably will).  But I don't think picking up a couple levels of Built Tough is going to unbalance anything.

Or to put it another way, yes Impaired Attribute and Analytical Mind both perform far better than other Qualities from a cost/benefit analysis.  But its in a category that has multiple hard limits on it and overall has the least impact to your character build.  And these only stick out now because we just have the CRB.  Once a few Splatbooks come out, they'll have company on the "Most broken" list.

(Also having a super cheesy negative quality lets players grab less mechanically "good" qualities for RP reasons and still hit the 20 extra Karma for Skills, Stats, Nuyen).
16
Previous Editions / Re: Specialization Q
« Last post by Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-24-20/0951:05> »
Ugh.  So hard to tell what subforum you're in.. I literally didn't realize this was a question placed in the prior editions area.  Mea culpa.


I could have sworn 5e had this same rule, but yes I'm not turning it up.  Still, expansion splatbooks have on occasion just injected new specializations into the mix, so there's no reason your table GM can't do it.  Besides, Rule 0 trumps every other rule.  So, so long as your GM is fine with your custom specialization, you're golden.
17
Previous Editions / Re: Specialization Q
« Last post by Michael Chandra on <02-24-20/0940:04> »
per page 92 of the CRB:

Quote
The listings of specializations with each skill are not exhaustive—
if players develop a specialization within a skill that they
would like to have, and their gamemaster approves it, they can
have it.
That's SR6. Can't find a section like that in SR5.
18
What about Impaired Attribute (you are bound to have dump stats. The point system forces you to min max). Or Analytical Mind which gives you one logic outside of limit for 3 karma :) For 11 karma you sneeze when you eat something common. For 12 karma you have to drug yourself every 6 hours :P The whole section is bonkers...

Yep that's the one I think is most broken.  For 30, 40, hell 70 bonus karma you can forfeit hypothetical maximums you don't ever plan to reach anyway?

Rather bad design imo.  It effectively just makes the game "build your character with as much starting karma as you want".
19
Previous Editions / Re: Specialization Q
« Last post by Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-24-20/0934:41> »
per page 92 of the CRB:

Quote
The listings of specializations with each skill are not exhaustive—
if players develop a specialization within a skill that they
would like to have, and their gamemaster approves it, they can
have it.
20
Previous Editions / Specialization Q
« Last post by Chalkarts on <02-24-20/0825:10> »
If I had a skill in a ranged weapon, could I take a specialization in "Called Shot"?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10