[Shadowjack]

Thanks to everyone for your input. There were certainly many different ideas exchanged which could be great contributions. I hope the devs take a look at that thread  I think for now I'll continue playing with extra IP's in my games and see how it plays out but if I don't like it I'll probably make new rules for wired reflexes and it's counterparts. If that's what my group does I'll post our new rules in a future thread.

[Angelone]

I read the original thread and would like to throw in my 2 cents. Not everyone plays a combat character just like not everybody plays a mage, face, or matrix type.  Ni matter what you do as a gm not everyone will be actively engaged at all times. Punishing someone because their character is of one type or another doesn't make the game more fun or diverse for them, it makes it frustrating.

You can have this argument about any type of character not only combat focused ones, however for some reason those are the ones everyone picks on.

Edit- The extra IPs is one of the things that makes combat types special taking those away from them doesn't help the game it hurts it.

[usefulidiot]

I read the original thread and would like to throw in my 2 cents. Not everyone plays a combat character just like not everybody plays a mage, face, or matrix type.  Ni matter what you do as a gm not everyone will be actively engaged at all times. Punishing someone because their character is of one type or another doesn't make the game more fun or diverse for them, it makes it frustrating.

You can have this argument about any type of character not only combat focused ones, however for some reason those are the ones everyone picks on.

Edit- The extra IPs is one of the things that makes combat types special taking those away from them doesn't help the game it hurts it.

I completely agree with this. Not everyone in our group plays combat characters either and there are certain things that they excell at that the combat characters completely fail at. Taking away one of the things that gives the combat characters their advantage in combat would create balance between them and everyone else during combat, but then they would be just like everyone else during combat and not a combat character anymore.

[Shadowjack]

I understand your feelings on this although I would like to make a few points. Combat focused characters will always retain a huge advantage, even without extra IP's. Specialists like investigators and faces are typically devoting a large portion of their resources to excel at non-combat activities which inherently puts them at a great disadvantage versus combat focused characters. After looking at quite a few characters and making some of my own, I think many of the non-combat characters would still be routinely crushed if no extra IP's existed. There are still plenty of other powerful combat options to choose from. However, combat focused characters would be killed by other character types much more frequently and I don't think that is a bad thing.

I guess my number one issue is it's not as much fun sitting through a ton of extra IP's for those that only have 1. Balance issues aside, the downtime can be considerable, especially in a large battle.

[Angelone]

Ane combat characters devote their resources to be better than people at combat.  The face talks circles around them, the hackers are better at hacking, etc. Everyone has their focus. There is also nothing keeping those others from taking IP boosters.

I don't think we are going to agree on this issue, it was an interesting topic however.

[The Big Peat]

I too feel a need to throw in my opinion and I am heavily in favour of something like them appearing in 5th ed. They are very Shadowrun; the use of machine and magic to produce things no human could ever do, giving an edge no ordinary human can really withstand. As far as I can see, there's a few main concerns...

One is they're something of a must have. Well, so are guns and fake SINs. Yes, extra IPs cost a fair bit more, but not outrageously so, particularly if you go down the drug route. Besides, if you don't mind being at a disadvantage in combat, they're not a must have. People have played without them and its been fine.

Another is they make everything samey. Again, I must disagree. There's still plenty of resources with which to buy other stuff, there's plenty of other stuff to buy. They come in many different flavours too. They're far from the only general type of gear that tends to pop up again and again anyway.

And there's the fact that for people without them, it can be boring waiting for those who have them to be done. I can understand that; in my game, I told my group to all be within 1 IP of each other, to minimise the risk. But there weren't many issues when there were those with and those without in the first game I played. Different groups have different approaches. However, there will always be times when one player's sat watching another have his fun. The face negotiating, the hacker, so on.

Ultimately, I feel there's nothing so detrimental about them that to overweigh how Shadowrun they are. Massively in favour of keeping something along the lines of them.

[Charybdis]

I too feel a need to throw in my opinion and I am heavily in favour of something like them appearing in 5th ed. They are very Shadowrun; the use of machine and magic to produce things no human could ever do, giving an edge no ordinary human can really withstand. As far as I can see, there's a few main concerns...*snip*

That was an excellent summary. +1 to you

[Angelone]

Thank you Big Peat, that was much better than I could have said it.

[Crash_00]

I too agree with Big Peat, extra IPs are only a must have if you're a combat oriented character. The cost to get them isn't any different than the costs related to every type of character being good at what they do.

All Faces spend points on social skills and contacts.
All Hackers spend points on commlinks and software.
All Mages spend points on spells and foci.

If you want to make a gripe that it makes all combat characters of a type the same, you're right to a degree. All good street sams are going to have something to make them faster, its just common sense. One thing I do to help make characters seem a little more unique, is I urge my players to actually pick out names for their augmentations. You'll see this in the cyberware suites, example character A might have a  Transys Advanced  Livewire (Wired Reflexes 2) implant while another might have an

Elmiser Lightning Rod

(Wired Reflexes 2) implant.

That said, you seem to be of the opinion that the problem with IP boosters is that it limits a characters other options to be able to take, but the character will still have anywhere from 1-4 points to spend on other augs (assuming everything is normal grade). That should be plenty.

The only points I've seen made for getting rid of IPs that seems to hold weight for me is that the non-combat players tend to get bored. While this is true for all non-role characters (non-hackers get bored when the hacker is at work, non-faces get bored when the face is at work, ect.) combat tends to take a lot more time to resolve for most groups than most social and hacking scenes (usually their are fewer characters involved in hacking scenes so it goes by faster).

There are many ways to solve this issue though.
Two without changing the rules are:
- Pre-roll NPC actions (I generally roll out 5 to twenty of every action I expect NPCs to take in combat with everything from a -3 to +3 modifier and just work my way down the numbers to speed things up)
- Let PCs with no IPs left take actions for NPCs (usually this is done with friendly NPCs, but I've done it with enemy NPCs too and have found that my PCs are much more vicious than I am when attacking their fellow runners  ).

Two rules modifications that I've found to work (although I haven't playtested on a large scale).
A). Split the normal unaugmented 1 IP with 2 simple actions into 2 IPs with 1 simple action each. This makes unaugmented characters seem slower and weaker, but keeps them from getting bored as quickly.

B). Have IP boosters grant additional simple actions instead of IPs. This method takes a lot of work to keep it from becoming overpowering. The way I played it (with some success), was that a player divided his simple actions by two and had that many simple actions on each IP (maximum of two IPs). This makes unaugmented characters extremely weak.

[Ryo]

Split the normal unaugmented 1 IP with 2 simple actions into 2 IPs with 1 simple action each. This makes unaugmented characters seem slower and weaker, but keeps them from getting bored as quickly.

...I like that. +1 to you, sir. Splitting up all actions across IPs, rather than just movement, just makes sense. It decreases the sense that IPs are simply extra turns. Instead, you're simply faster than the other guy, taking actions around, and in-between, his actions.

If there was just a good way to divide things up sensibly, whether you have 3 less IP or only 1, that'd be a good foundation for a homebrew IP system.

[Crash_00]

I've tried it several ways. The first way I did it was that everyone has four IPs and you split your simple actions up across them evenly, with you deciding where any uneven splits go.

So a normal human would have 1 simple action in their choice of two of the four IPs.
Someone with Wired 1 would have 1 simple action in each of the four IPs.
Someone with Wired 2 would have 1 simple action in each of the four IPs, and 1 extra simple action in two of the four IPs.
Someone with Wired 3 would have 2 simple actions in each of the four IPs.

Using this system, I always gave each character a free action on each of the IPs on their initiative score (I'm a nice guy) so they got to do something (Although I limited anything that had been made a free action from a simple action to once per 2 simple actions (like the Krav Maga take Aim)).

It also kept that annoying augmented characters are slower than unaugmented movement wise bug in the system from rearing its ugly head.

I've also done it where you can split your simple actions however you want across IPs to a maximum of two per IP, also giving a free action on each of the four passes. The first method had a more gritty and lethal feel, while the second seemed closer to where the game is now.

If you do give the first route a try, I highly suggest doing it in a new campaign and letting the players do a food fight playtest with it before making their real characters. It takes some getting used to as it highly changes how combat works and after the first session almost everyone will be grabbing cover on their first action.

I like it just because it makes it feel like IPs are granting a faster reaction time than just alright everyone went now take your four extra actions mr. super freak.

[Ryo]

So how do complex actions work out with that system, if you only have on simple per action phase? Melee characters were the first stumbling point I hit while considering this idea.

[Crash_00]

Slightly clumsily, but you declare you're holding the simple action for melee in the first phase you decide that and you spend your next phase's simple action to form the complex action.

Its hard to explain, but it does have the advantage of being able to chain simple actions across phases or even combat turns to form a complex action.

I'm bad at explaining things sometimes so I'll try to give an example:
Joe the Normy has no IP booster.
Joe rolls initiative for a score of 12.
On the first IP Joe dives for cover and observes the scene in detail, noticing that an orc is running up to his location with a combat axe. Joe declares he's holding his other simple action on two to form a melee action.

The next combat turn Joe rolls initiative for a score of 13.
On his first IP he spends a simple action to finish the complex action and make his melee attack.

If you look at combat in a turn based manner (which is how the system represents it) it seems extremely unwieldly, but I've always seen combat as more of a fluid chaos controlled by the arbitrary law of the rules so it works for me and my group.

[Shadowjack]

Very well said, Peat. I still believe extra IP's are not a good thing in general but you have definitely pulled me much closer to your side