[Shadowjack]

Would you like to see them in 5e? I know many of you will instinctively answer yes but let me try to persuade you.

- Extra IP's are a huge part of your character(essence, power points, sustaining focus) and everyone seems to agree that you NEED multiple IP's to compete. This is essentially forcing players to choose between a weak combat character without multiple IP's or a strong combat character with IP's, With all the options in Shadowrun, don't you think this is a shame?

- The more resources you invest into multiple IP's, the less interesting and unique your character will be. The entire coolness factor is non existent because it is a combat character staple(based on what everyone seems to say here). This is making your character more generic.

- There is a ton of cool augmentations but you won't get nearly as many as you could afford if you didn't have to take multiple IP augmentations. This lack of breathing room makes cookie cutter builds more prevalent but if there were no multiple IP's in general, you would see many different augmentation builds.

- A big part of the fun of an rpg is playing out your turn. Imo, it's not fun watching other characters taking 2-3 more "turns" than you before you can act again. I don't see the need to make so many characters ineffective in combat like this.

- The game would run much smoother if IP's didn't exist. Splitting movement between IP's because someone else has them and you don't is basically crap. This system is open to abuse via grenades and probably a bunch of other things.

- Above all, we would see many more unique characters if multiple IP's didn't exist.

Fwiw I have always loved the idea of Wired Reflexes and it's counterparts but it just isn't appealing in it's current form. Instead of extra IP's I would like to see something related. I often wonder if I should just make a house rule to remove all of this from my game so everyone can take equal turns and the game will run more smoothly. It's not cool to swing a sword, miss and then have one guy fire 8 bursts at you in the same 3 seconds and kill you 3 times over.

Thoughts?

[Stahlseele]

SR5D20?

[Shadowjack]

Lol. Now that would be a disaster I don't want to touch another d20 to be honest.

[JoeNapalm]

. It's not cool to swing a sword, miss and then have one guy fire 8 bursts at you in the same 3 seconds and kill you 3 times over.

Thoughts?

That's why you get extra IPs. So that doesn't happen.

I don't understand your argument, really. If I am reading it right, you're saying that you don't want to spend the resources on additional IPs, but then you're bored (and dead) because other people understood the value of being wired and get to go more often.

Point by point :

- No, I don't think it is a shame. SR4 offers you a dizzying variety of ways to build an effective combat character. You don't HAVE to have 4 IPs. You can do pretty well with 2, which leaves you all kinds of options. Heck, you can get by with 1 IP...if you aren't combat-centric.

- Even if you did get  4 IPs, which I would agree does somewhat limit your character, you still have plenty of easy to make your character unique. If you find it restricting, get fewer IPs.

- Yes, ineffective characters are ineffective. If you only have a single IP, you will have to wait while other, more effective, combatants get their turns. They chose to spend resources on IPs, you didn't - you spent them on other things. It is a trade off. Besides, how many rounds do most combats last? Very few.

- The game runs smoothly. Movement spread over IPs is odd, but most people, I think, houserule this for simplicity. Grenades are fine...well Scatter is wonky, but a superhumanly fast person should be able to react.

- I disagree entirely on the point of uniqueness. Removing options does not enhance variety. You are saying that by making EVERYONE have the same number of IPs, they will become less similar...that is backwards.

It sounds like you don't want to burn all your BP on having 4 IP, but don't want anyone to have more IP than you...it is about balance. You can have your cake, or you can eat it. You can't eat your cake and then decide no one else can have theirs...

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Crazy Ivan]

I wouldn't mind seeing IP's done away with in 5e if it ever comes about. I think its fun on a personal basis to go several times, but I fully follow and understand that the other players get bored with waiting on everyone else to finish their turns.

It's also frustrating to have to invest in Wired Reflexes/Move By WIre/Synaptic Booster/Improved Reflexes/Sustsaining Foci just to survive in the combat, so that's wasted nuyen/essence/focus/karma if you are playing something not uber set for combat like a face or an investigator.

But at the same time, that is one of the staples of SR as far as I know (I have only looked into SR3 and beyond).

What would you suggest Shadowjack?

[Shadowjack]

"You are saying that by making EVERYONE have the same number of IPs, they will become less similar...that is backwards". I'm not sure why you think that to be honest. As it stands right now, at least 90% of combat focused characters have multiple IP's, thus making the majority of combat focused characters similar in that regard. By removing this requirement you will in turn see much more diversity.

It's also not about understanding the value of extra IP's, it is obviously very powerful. It just seems very silly to me that the first thing people do when they make a combat focused character is say "Alright, how am I going to get extra IP's this time?" That is very poor design.

As for my suggestion, Crazy Ivan, I would keep the names of wired reflexes, synaptic boosters etc and represent the quickness enhancement with something similar, but less game breaking than extra IP's. I could give examples but it would probably just derail the  thread.

There is no reason investigators, hackers etc need to be practically useless in combat.

[JoeNapalm]

Saying that, instead of choosing between 1 through 4 IPs, everyone has 1 IP - that reduces variety.

It's self-evident.

Which of the following has more variety?:

Option 1: 

Option 2:       

If you did not choose Option 2, you need to back up and rethink things for awhile.

Investigators, Hackers, etc, aren't useless in combat. The way IPs have been redesigned over the editions has actually REDUCED the effectiveness of things like Wired Reflexes. As it stands now, being blazing fast only counts at the end of the round - used to be you could, if you were fast enough, take all your actions before the slow-pokes could even react.

My current main combat character has 2 IPs. He does fine. Yes, he had to get +1 IP somewhere, but that certainly did NOT limit my ability to make him unique. It cost me more BP to be a Metavariant than it did to get Move-by-Wire. Wire Reflexes would have been less than half as much.

By your logic, you should remove Metahumans from the game, because it would allow people to make characters that were more unique.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Shadowjack]

I'm not sure why you always resort to confrontations like this. If you read what I said, you should realize you are wrong.

[JoeNapalm]

I'm not sure why you always resort to confrontations like this. If you read what I said, you should realize you are wrong.

Wow. Seriously?

Good luck in your travels.

-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate

[VileTerror]

*coughs slightly*
Well!  That's a mite awkward.

Although, I would like to suggest that some issues with Initiative Passes could be compensated for by way of House Rules.  A GM may opt to impose an automatic or resistible Stun element to prolonged use of certain augmentations which grant additional Initiative Passes.  Other potential downsides or complications could be provided, as well, such as costs to maintain the implants (in the Cyber- and Bioware situations, at least).  Depending on the GM and players, the cost alone can make extra Passes prohibitively expensive.
Another alternative is to allow for items or spells which 'slow down' opponents (or allies, if you /really/ think it's necessary), and remove x number of additional Passes from their Turn.  I'm not 100% versed in the rules, so these may already exist.

I agree that it can be painfully unfun, especially for new players who haven't let learnt the value of additional Passes.  A good GM, though, will make sure that EVERY player has the opportunity to shine.  That may be the real issue some people face when they're up against Pass-Monkey builds.

[Crazy Ivan]

Its a difficult argument either way. How else do you represent that level of speed inside of combat? I've fought people who could move infinitely faster than I ever thought possible, but not to the degree that cyberware/magic leads us to believe that is intended.

[nojosecool]

Just kicking around some ideas here, so please let me know what your takes on it are.

I'd be for making that first extra initiative pass really really easy to get (5-10 pt. quality?) so that basically anyone can get it with no problem.  Just make it so that 3rd and 4th are really hard to get, and you can't tack any more onto the one that is offered as a 5-10 point quality.

So basically, the one offered as a quality gives you only that one.  Heck, make it so that drugs don't even stack for game balancing purposes.  You cannot stack any more on it, there is not another quality that gives you more IP's.  If you want 3 or more, you must go with wired reflexes, synaptic boosters, etc. and start sacrificing essence, power points, or boat loads of nuyen to get them.

Like Joe was saying, that 2nd initiative pass is usually enough, even for combat characters.  If you don't have to make serious sacrifices to get it, then everyone is still in the game and all the flexibility is still there.  Trying eliminate initiative passes from the game kind of sucks a lot of the spirit out of the game, though.

I agree with Shadowjack in that being stuck with only one initiative pass basically removes you from combat, which sucks.  But, if everyone basically has 2, then only the sams and adepts who made serious sacrifices for their extra shots get to go while everyone else is waiting.  And really, that's not that big of a deal, is it?  It doesn't seem like it would take up too much time (nobody should be waiting and waiting to go), and those who make serious sacrifices get the full benefits for it.

What do you think about that?

[MadMaddy]

Personally I like the extra IP's. Not everyone is good at combat and for some people thats all they do. I don't think you should limit everyone to one IP because some people will be faster and all around better than you, it happens. Ya I agree that some of the rules are a little different but as others have said there are ways to fix it with house rules and the like.

[Ryo]

I like the 'theory' of Initiative Passes. I like the fluff of the augmentations like Move-by-Wire and Wired Reflexes. However, in practice, I have to agree with Shadowjack. In any system, if there is something that is a Must-Have, then there is something wrong with your game balance. Multiple IPs are a must have, and I've never liked that.

All my combat players immediately jump on that shit, ending up as a 4 IP tweaker of one kind or another. This in turn forces me to give the majority of the enemies multiple passes to keep these players from bulldozing the competition, which in turn pressures my other players to invest in multiple IPs as well, even if they aren't trying to be combat specialists. It's a vicious cycle that basically means everyone is gonna be packing at least 2 IPs, usually 3, and probably 4.

Now, my main issue with that, as a GM, is the whole issue of in-game time. With everyone a tweaker, combat gets resolved in less than 3 seconds more often than not, and that really messes with the cinematic quality of the game. How many firefights can you name in movies that end in less than 3 seconds? It's silly.

In my latest game, I outright ruled that nobody could take any IP boosters. With all that extra BP, I've seen a lot more interesting builds, and so far, I'm a lot happier about how that game is turning out. So while I still love the idea of Wired Reflexes, as a game mechanic, it just doesn't work well in my experience.

[Onion Man]

Shadowjack, if it were possible to disagree with you more than I do right at this moment, I would disagree with you that much more.

This isn't your first post that amounts to "I like the idea of playing a game called Shadowrun, but all the rules are stupid and if you disagree with me you're wrong and stupid".

I want you to try very hard to explain how decreasing variety increases uniqueness.  Pretend like I don't know anything about competition theories or taxonomy or basic prepositional logic and wow me with something just mind blowing here.

JoeNapalm, for the third time in two weeks I agree with everything you say.  I'm impressed.  +1