Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Juca Bala Sep 18 2011, 02:45 PM

Well, I'm playing Shadowrun 4th for quite a long time now, but I still have fond memories of 3rd edition, maybe is the complexity, that was dumbed down a lot more than I wanted to, maybe is simply the new pool mechanic, but the fact is that there is something "missing" in the present edition, but the trouble is: I don't know what it is.

So, fellow "forumates", I ask you: what you think that got better in the 4th edition and what you think that got worse? I'm talking only about rules, please don't dwell in things about the history and scenario.

Thanks!

Edit: Also, one time I stumbled upon a page where it was proposed a major overhaul on third edition rules but I can't seen to find it now... Do any of you know anything about it?

Posted by: Laesin Sep 18 2011, 04:03 PM

www.sr3r.net/forum may be the site you're looking for. As far as 3rd vs 4th goes I'm not really qualified as I've never made the switch.

Posted by: Glyph Sep 18 2011, 05:37 PM

Things changed, some for the better, some not... but it is very subjective.

Fixed TNs were a big change, improving some things (in SR3, firefights could consist mostly of people missing each other, due to how high TNs could get with penalties), and making others worse (a Willpower of 6 vs. 5 in SR4 means you get a whopping one extra die to roll. In SR4, where Willpower was the TN, a Willpower of 6 vs. 5 made you literally twice as hard to affect with spells). Some of the changes were translated over on a one to one basis without much thought. A smartlink giving -2 TN was a lot more powerful than a smartlink giving +2 dice.

I miss the tactics of figuring out how to allocate dice pools such as Combat Pool and Spell Pool. But on the other hand, with melee defense purely being defensive (except for a few workarounds with the advanced martial arts rules), and with full defense being an interrupt action, initiative passes matter in melee again, and you can better simulate things like wolfpack tactics.

For all that they talk about mages being overpowered in SR4, they were the same way in SR3. Aspected mages were a much more viable build in SR3, though.

Posted by: Cain Sep 18 2011, 05:42 PM

Mmn. Hard to do without starting a flamewar, so I'll just stick to the facts.

Pro of SR4.5: Writing quality and layout are much, much better. FASA had serious difficulties with layout and rules presentation, making a lot of things more complex than they had to be. SR4.5 isn't really any simpler, but it's much better written. That makes it more accessible.

Pro: Artwork, at least in the 4.5 core book, is extremely shiny.

Con: Instead of being original, the SR4.5 core system is purely derivative. I heard a podcast by Rob Boyle who basically admitted they cribbed off nWoD. He thought it was fair game, because oWoD cribbed off Shadowrun originally; I just think it was a sad decision.

Con: Character generation in SR4.5 is a major pain in the butt.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 18 2011, 05:47 PM

Original/derivative isn't really about the game, though. 'Good' is the only thing that matters.

Posted by: Critias Sep 18 2011, 06:01 PM

I was one of the die-hard SR3 guys back in the day (as my warning levels and temporary suspensions on here can attest), but I'll admit that SR4 grew on me lately; not from writing for them (I still wished I was writing for SR3 when it came time to stat dudes up, etc), but actually from starting to run games at conventions. It's been easy as pie for new players to learn the basics of the game, to wrap their head around the core mechanic, and to be slinging dice like pros by the end of a convention session. Sometimes folks who hadn't gamed at all, sometimes who hadn't ever played Shadowrun, either way SR4 "clicked" very quickly for them and they've had a good time with it. I don't think it's because I'm a prodigy at GMing, but rather because the core of the system, and the exclusion of variable TNs and combat/magic pools (both of which I sorely miss, personally) actually makes things run a lot smoother.

Does that make it better? No. But better specifically for drawing new players in? Yeah, maybe.

Posted by: KeyMasterOfGozer Sep 18 2011, 06:09 PM

My group played SR3 for many years and started playing SR4 when it first came out. Many times we argue about if we should go back to SR3, and our arguments come out inconclusive.

Purely from a mechanics perspective,
1) SR3 had completely different systems for the different aspects of the game (Combat, Magic, Matrix, etc.). SR4 did a good job of merging the basic mechanics of each of the aspects into one coherent mechanic. (Except crazily, they used a slightly different mechanic for Matrix, which I think could have been handled much better using the same mechanic.)

2) In SR4, we loved that rolling involved attribute and skill, as we thought those should both be involved, however, there is something broken in the simple Attrib+Skill mechanic. I have not really seen someone suggest a fix for it that seemed good yet, and I have not come up with anything either. This mechanic seems to place a huge value to Attribute, and somehow not really give a skill as much sway as it should have.

3) SR4's rulebook has LOTS of ambiguous passages. Whereas SR3 actually spelled out complex rules for each separate case, SR4 tries to handle these with fluff text that is often very unclear, or even totally illogical.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 18 2011, 06:15 PM

Ditto on 2 and 3, KeyMaster. It's usually only a problem with the munchkins, though there are some truly legitimate confusing spots.

Posted by: Cain Sep 19 2011, 06:26 AM

This wasn't quite the case. With the exception of Vehicles, all the systems used the same core rule of skill vs variable TN. They had different modifiers in use (Programs reduced the TN in the Matrix, for example), but still stuck with the variable TN model.

I have to agree somewhat. The quality is higher in SR4.X, and the layout is better. SR3 was more explicit, but the rules were often harder to find.

I've been teaching people Shadowrun for 22 years now. I haven't actually noticed that the game is easier to learn, but the improved writing makes it easier to teach. I can point to one or two passages instead of a constant back-and-forth of page flipping. I've actually had more players get turned off by character creation in SR4/4.5, and I still maintain that it's a mess. Honestly, I think what you're discovering is more a testament to your own growth and ability as a teacher and GM than the game itself. I ran Virtual Seattle games back in the day, and Denver Missions when they came out. New players came, learned, and got better as the game progressed. The better the GM, the better they progressed.

Posted by: KeyMasterOfGozer Sep 19 2011, 02:03 PM

You've got to be kidding me. I mean, sure, they also use dice, but the rulesets were very different. Even within Magic, there were completely different rules for how hermetic vs. shamanic summoning worked.


With respect, I must say, I don't see where the "good writting" is. The game is easier to learn because they simplified the mechanics and (at least attempted to) unified them into a single mechanic for all parts of the system, not because it is somehow written better. You can point to one or two passages, but odds are good, people on this forums are currently having flame wars because those one or two passages can easily be interpreted in many different ways. Good layout is nice, but ,at least for me, the content inside the layout, seems to be the chief problem. At it's heart, this is a Rulebook. 4 people shouldn't read a rulebook and end up playing the game in 4 different ways.

I still like SR4 better than SR3, but only slightly. Both were good systems.

Posted by: Thanee Sep 19 2011, 02:05 PM

It's the old Dice Pools (Combat Pool, Spell Pool, etc), and the decisions you could make with them (when to use, what to use it for (offense/defense), how much to use, etc).

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Thanee Sep 19 2011, 02:08 PM

You could probably, somehow, make it so, that the Skill works as a limit for how many hits can be scored. But that would require some major reworking of the system.

That would definitely put more emphasis on Skills, though.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Bigity Sep 19 2011, 02:12 PM

Yea, unless you average out skills with the attribute, one or the other is going to be more valuable, in a power-gaming frame of reference.

I do like the optional rule for decking that limits successes based on the program, but you can't really do that with shooting people in the face, unless you start giving weapons a rating

Posted by: Seerow Sep 19 2011, 02:21 PM

Yep. I would however personally much prefer skill to be much more valuable than attribute, since you need skill for every task and attribute applies to a ton of stuff. Like, I don't care how high your logic is, with a skill of 2 you should be rolling fewer dice than someone with a more average logic heavily specialized in the same skill. (The biggest example of this for me was where we had a player who was primarily a gunner type pick up demolitions at rating 5 as a specialization, so this guy is like an expert. When I brought in my logic based character who was primarily focused on mechanics and a bit of hacking [we use logic replaces program rule], who had happened to pick up demolitions 1, had a dicepool that was almost twice as big, despite hardly being trained, simply because his logic, and modifiers that had been bought to help other things, stacked up so high skill basically didn't matter. So you have the barely trained guy telling the guy who is an expert to step off and let him handle it... which isn't right imo)



Well someone above suggested making the success limited based on skills, so no need to give weapon ratings. Unless you have 6 skill you can't get 6 successes. So sad.

Posted by: Thanee Sep 19 2011, 02:27 PM

Another (fairly simple) idea would be to limit Attribute dice to 2x Skill Rating. So, with Logic 6 and Skill 2 you would be rolling 4+2=6 dice.

Or, to make full use of your maxed-out Attribute 9, you would need to have the Skill at Rating 5 at least.

That one might actually work.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Bigity Sep 19 2011, 02:32 PM

I like that idea as well. And just use that as the limit for all tests, even matrix ones. It even makes sense, you can be the most gifted specimen on the planet, but that just means you can eventually be better at something than most people ever could - you still need to learn how to shoot/swing/hack/tackle quarterbacks/whatever.

I'd have to go think about magic tests though, see how that looks.

Posted by: Cain Sep 19 2011, 02:44 PM

Actually, no. Summoning was the same for both: Conjuring dice vs TN = Force, successes = services, drain based on Charisma. Hermetics just had to bind the spirits as well, to use the SR4.5 terminology. Really, there was no mechanical difference between the summoning rolls.

If you want to go there, the game is not "simplified" in the slightest. If anything, SR4.5 is a lot more complex than SR3. Because the writing and layout is better, it's easier to read and learn. The system looks deceptively simple, but the idea of dice pool = attribute + skill does not hold up throughout SR4.5. For example, almost all Matrix tests are Program + Skill, instead of Attribute. A few *are*, however, and so you actually have to memorize which actions use attributes and which ones use programs.

The strength of SR4.5 is that it's better presented, so it seems more intuitive. And handouts and selected paragraphs are easier to find. That means it's much more accessible. However, intuitive and accessible do not equal simpler.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 02:48 PM

*Points at post errata Bows*

Posted by: Cheops Sep 19 2011, 02:57 PM

Something I really miss is the "impossible" rolls. In SR4 there are rolls that are completely impossible for untrained/undertrained to pull off whereas things that should still be near impossible for seasoned veterans is routine. I know that Edge can make up for that but SR3 also had the Karma Pool so those things wash. But an impossible task was TN 12+ in SR3 and while the seasoned guy was rolling more dice and by definition therefore had a better chance of succeeding it was still possible for the untrained guy to pull it off without having to spend Karma Pool.

Scaling Matrix difficulty is something I miss. It also used exactly the same rules as the rest of the game unlike SR4 which changes (dice pool isn't constructed the same as in the rest of the rules). Also the personality of decks as a companion character that grows with your decker is gone. Now I'm only ever 1-2 missions away from having a top of the line commlink.

The much vilified Maneuver Score is something I actually miss as it made the VCR a highly useful piece of cyberware.

Scaling damage is another one. It actually made different weaponry have different flavors. Now there is functionally no difference between a light pistol (formerly damage code L) and heavy pistol (damage code M). Final difference now is only 1 box of damage as opposed to 1 versus 3.

Cyberware and MAD scanners being actually archways and wands that have to be passed through or used on you. Makes it much easier to go Downtown when your cyberware doesn't set off scanners at 15m range. It is impossible for a hacker to keep the team on the down low anymore.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 03:14 PM

I am actually glad that they got rid of this. Now, you can actually HURT a shadowrunner with a Holdout or Light Pistol, which was nigh impossible to do in SR2/3.

Posted by: Cheops Sep 19 2011, 03:25 PM

Yup. Unless you caught him unawares or without his armor or with an equally skilled shootist. In SR4 the ganger with a light pistol is also very unlikely to kill the runner unless those same conditions apply.

The idea of a light pistol isn't supposed to be to kill anyway. It is supposed to be a deterrent. Shoot someone with it and most people are going to leave you alone. I alway used to use the Professional Rating damage threshold and do the same in SR4. Take boxes of damage equal to your professional rating and your morale breaks and you disengage (so 1 box for most NPCs in the world, 6 boxes and even Tir Ghosts are withdrawing).

The problem now is that the light pistols are just as deadly as most weapons so why bother having the distinction? Is DV3 really that different from the DV4 heavy pistols, smgs, and assault rifles (IIRC at work so AFB)?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 03:38 PM

Even unaware, the damage was often so low from the Light Pistol it was trivial to soak. Yes, Situation does matter. It always will. But, My expereince with SR2/3 was that there were certain weapons you always took. You always had a Heavy Pistol, because anything else was a joke.

In SR4.
Holdouts are DV3-4?
Lights are DV4
Heavy are DV5 (DV 6 for the RSW)
SMG's are either DV4 or DV5
AR is DV 6
BR is DV 6-7?
SG;s are DV7/9
Sniper are DV7-9

They can all kill you dead. Like in Real Life. I like this.

Posted by: Cain Sep 19 2011, 03:53 PM

Actually, you've got it backwards. Because of the way damage scales in SR3, if you score 6 successes with a light pistol, you would deal 10 boxes of damage. Even with a ton of armor, you were likely to be hurt, since armor only reduced the TN of the damage value. If you didn't have 10 dice to soak with, you were guaranteed to take damage. Assuming a body of 3, if you scored all successes, you'd still take 7 damage. Assuming no successes. you're out.

Because SR4.5 uses Body + Armor, even though the weapon would deal a modified 12 damage, it's trivial to get a ton of soak dice. You're still likely to get hurt, but it's not a sure thing. Since SR4.5 has hit points instead of a damage track, it's entirely possible for a troll to completely fail the roll and remain fighting.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 05:45 PM

I am not theory crafting here. We actually TRIED to make the Light pistol work as an assassination tool (You know the scene: walk up behind the guy and shoot him unawares). It failed miserably. It actually works in SR4X. Any gun should have the potential to Kill you dead with a single shot, caught unawares. SR3 did not work in that manner. At All. Maybe on paper, but never in actual play.

Posted by: Cain Sep 19 2011, 06:10 PM

Bad dice rolls can kill any practical example. Admittedly, Shadowrun has never done a good job of modeling derringers: small, high powered, low ammo weapons, like an over-under twin-barrel. SR3 and SR4.5 are no exception. But even so, it does not work in SR4.5 either, and on paper, SR3 actually is slightly deadlier in this regard.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 06:18 PM

But Paper is not Actual Play.

Sorry, But I have to disagree with you here. I NEVER killed anyone with a Light Pistol or Holdout in SR3. EVER (and boy did I try). It is a constant thing in SR4. Hell, I have killed more people in SR4 with a Light Pistol, than I did in SR3 wiuuth a Heavy. Played both through their entire run. It may be Anecdotal, but it is a fact. Soaking 2's is a Far cry from Soaking 5's. In SR3, Soaking 2's was a lot more common for a Non-Heavy Pistol sized weapon than Soaking 5's was.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 06:22 PM

yeah, but if somebody got the hold out up to deadly damage and you only had 4 body to roll resistance, you did take a medium damage no matter what . .

Posted by: Seerow Sep 19 2011, 06:24 PM

Wait SR3 only reduced one box per success?


We may have been playing wrong when I played SR3, I seem to remember staging damage down working the same as staging it up. So if the holdout gets 3 successes to stage up to deadly, it only takes 3 successes to stage the damage back down to light.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 06:26 PM

Staging worked on Levels. You did not need Successes to stage Boxes, You staged Levels (Deadly/Serious/Moderate/Light/None). Exactly. Except in SR2/3, it was 2 Successes per Level. Up or Down.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 06:29 PM

No no no . .
the SR3 Damage system worked COMPLETELY different from SR4!
You got Weapons, light Pistol did 6 Light Physical damage.
So your target number was 6 to resist the damage.
And you needed 2 hits to take NO damage at all from the gun.
Every 2 hits on the shooters side staged Damage up by one LEVEL.
So from 6L it goes to 6M, then to 6S and to 6D damage.
To go from light to deadly damage you need 6 hits.
To stage down Deadly to nothing you need 8 hits.
Armor DIRECTLY LOWERS DAMAGE TAKEN.
So with Armor 4 worn, you would not need to roll 6's to get a hit, but 2's.
So you would not have to roll 8x6 but 8x2. Much easier.
But if you only HAVE 4 Dice to roll, then you STILL take Medium Damage.
Which is 3 Boxes.
Light is 1 Box.
Serious is 6 Boxes.
Deadly is 9 Boxes.
And none of this nonsense of Damage not exceeding armor going into stun instead either . .
If you want stun damage, you use specifically stun damage weapons.
And even then you may send your target into overflow physical damage.
Now the HEAVY Pistol, starts out with 9 MEDIUM Damage.
So without Armor, you would need to roll four 9's to stage down to nothing. On D6, this is somewhat more improbable.
And so on.

Posted by: tete Sep 19 2011, 07:09 PM

Your mistaking mechanics with fluff. The mechanics between the hermetic and the shaman were nearly identical, even the spirits and elementals are nearly the same stat wise, but the fluff was drastically different between the two.



High armor values were way more important in 3e. A skilled SR3 Shadowrunner was fine with a hold out vs an unarmored opponent (which I did often). Armor is much more swingy now.

The main difference between SR4 & 3 besides layout/editing is that in 3e having a low number was worse and having a high number was better because most things worked on TN and # of Successes. 4e works of a linear progression so low stats are not as bad and high stats are not as good. Honestly the reason 4e was so much easier for new players was the cheat sheets. If 3e had free cheat sheets the new rules would not have felt so much better for new players.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 07:16 PM

Uhm . . actually, the Magical Systems were different by Crunch too, not just by fluff . .
Shamans could summon spirits on the fly, with one complex action, but could not bind them.
And they lost them every sun up/down and every time they left the building/street or fell into a river or something like that . .
Hermetics could summon and bind Elementals with money and Karma, but they only vanished when they had done their due..

Also, yes, higher Armor was MUCH better in SR3. But also hard to accomplish.
Starting Character with 8 points of Armor for Ballistic was basically maxed out.
But this also meant that with a Body of 9, he could pretty reliably take a shotgun blast to the face and barely cough . .

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 07:20 PM

Yes, I know, But when wearing any amount of Typical Armor, that Target number for that Light Pistol is reduced. Typically, that number became a 2. So, 2's in SR3, and 5's in SR4. Pretty simple really. So, in actual Play, No one ever took damage from the Light Pistol in SR3. Many Deaths have resulted from a Light Pistol in SR4, at least at our table. Which was my point. This is why I am glad for the removal of staging as it functioned in SR3.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 07:21 PM

Yah, i should have quoted the other guy, i wasn't really talking to you . . i KNOW you know this stuff Hooker ^^

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 07:25 PM

Hooker Huh... Man, I hated the Show...

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 07:27 PM

well, shows you at least have a modicum of taste then ^^
also, good associative skills/deduction.

Posted by: tete Sep 19 2011, 07:30 PM

I still see the systems as mostly the same, when you loose your summoned thingy is fluff. Though yes, how/when you conjure them is different but its the same roll and IIRC Air Elemental and Air Spirit has the same stats

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 07:33 PM

Difference, again, that, technically, a shaman can't have an air spirit inside of a building . . only a hearth spirit . .
While the Hermetic can have all 4 elementals everywhere all the time, no questions asked . .

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 07:33 PM

Heh... Thanks...

Posted by: Seerow Sep 19 2011, 07:37 PM

Stahl: The way you described it is basically how I thought it worked, it was this post that confused me:

Apparently this was just describing the process wrong.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 19 2011, 07:43 PM

Yes and no.
Deadly Damage is 10 Boxes of Damage on your Track.
Basically, complete Track filled at once.
But the TN to resist is still 6, if you do not wear any armor.
Because the actual Power of the Pistol was just 6.
Technically, if you had cheaty dice, you could get along with every kind of damage with just 8 dice for resistance.
Because, technically, you only need to roll 8x(Power of Damage) to resist ANY AND ALL DAMAGE.
So, even if you had 30D damage to resist, you could, in theory, do it with 8 dice . .
But you have to roll five 6's on every last single die again and again. The odds are staggering. And against you.
But it COULD HAPPEN!
This only changes when the Damage Code STARTS at Deadly and THEN the other guy gets net Hits.
Because you need to Reduce Net Hits first, before you can start reducing Damage.

Posted by: KeyMasterOfGozer Sep 19 2011, 08:10 PM

Well, as Stalseele said, there is more to the mechanics of the game than just the dice roll itself. You could make an argument that SR3 is exactly the same as SR4 because they both ask you to roll 6-sided dice pool to gain successes.

Posted by: Cheops Sep 19 2011, 10:35 PM

My annecdotal evidence is that I have killed several PCs with light pistols, usually flechette to the head, over the course of my years so we can't come to an agreement on that.

My beef with lack of staging is that all the guns feel the same now. Before when a guy pulled out a light pistol and we were armored it was like "no problem guys." He pulls out the medium pistol or the smgs and we start to sweat. When the assault rifles and bigger came out then we knew that it was going to be a brutal fight. With SR4 there is only like 1-2 box difference between each of these classes of guns so seeing a light pistol is as intimidating as seeing a machine gun -- which feels very weird to me. YMMV.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2011, 10:52 PM

I'm sorry, but I tend to have a vastly different reaction to seeing a Light Pistol as opposed to a Machine Gun. If you are thinking about Boxes of Damage when they come into play, then maybe that is the real issue here.

Posted by: Seerow Sep 19 2011, 11:00 PM

Except the automatics have a massive advantage: Burstfire/full auto. When a light pistol comes out, I know I might eventually die, but chances are I'll survive a few hits. If an assault rifle, machine gun, or minigun comes out, suddenly I'm keenly aware that a single net success will likely drop me.


Now the differences between a light pistol and heavy pistol, or SMG and HMG aren't as big, but they are there.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 19 2011, 11:02 PM

Ah, but flechette to the head is a big difference.

I think you're right that the combination of inflated DPs and +net hits to DV makes the individual guns *slightly* (not entirely) unimportant.

But presumably your pistol is modded for BF/FA. The HMGs are hugely nasty, though, with higher DV, better AP, and FA standard; you're not taking stun.

Posted by: Kirk Sep 19 2011, 11:25 PM

Ironically, I consider this genius from a game development perspective. You get extra damage boxes, but at the same time the shooter gets (a chance at) some secondary effect for being dead on target. Not breaking the skin, but bruising the crap out of you.

Just my opinion, of course

Posted by: tete Sep 19 2011, 11:26 PM

If its not a numeric, i see it as fluff not mechanics. Shamans not being able to summon an air spirit in a building is a setting thing. You may as well say there are Dragons or there are no firearms. A GM could easily let a Shaman summon anything without modifying a rule or make all cyberdecks wireless. Thus why it falls into fluff (for me) Different strokes and all...

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 19 2011, 11:29 PM

Ha, well that's just clearly silly. A non-mage can't summon any spirits, nor astral perceive (without drugs), and that's not numeric. That's what a 'rule' means.

Posted by: Glyph Sep 20 2011, 04:35 AM

My biggest problem with light pistols was twofold. First, their damage code was pitiful. 6L does not compare to 9M - especially against armored targets. Okay, so then light pistols could be the option when heavy pistols were too conspicuous, right? Only there were several light pistols that had comparable concealability and weight to a light pistol! So that left exactly zero reason to ever get a light pistol, other than gimping yourself for flavor.

SR4 actually did it right - light pistols are more concealable, and do a point less damage - a small enough difference that they are actually something I would realistically consider for a character.

Posted by: Runner Smurf Sep 20 2011, 04:41 AM

My take on the changes in 4e:

1. Core mechanic (set TN, larger dice pools, no combat/hacking/spell pools, counting "hits")
2. Magic is unified - shamans and hermetics are largely identical now, with the only real difference being the drain stat, and one different spirit type. Shamanic spirit domains are gone, and totems are a lot less emphasized.
3. Magicians are more robust, with a lot fewer ways to get their magic stat reduced - no disruption risk, etc.
4. Magicians have more varied power levels. You don't just start out with a magic score of 6.
5. Deckers are now hackers. Decks are gone, and it no longer takes millions of nuyen to equip a decker.
6. The matrix has been, in general, greatly simplified and designed to integrate more closely into the game via AR and PANs. Hacker-types now work much better, and doing hacking no longer means e rest of the players go get pizza.
7. Vehicle combat and systems have been greatly simplified as well, and better integrated with the general hacking stuff (no more meaconing!). I think they went a little too far in reducing vehicle stats, but it still works pretty well overall.
8. Introduced weapon modification rules in Arsenal, which don't really have a direct 3e equivalent that I can think of.
9. No more karma pool, it's now edge and a attribute.

Those are the major differences that I can think of.

Posted by: Runner Smurf Sep 20 2011, 04:41 AM

Gyargh. Double post.

Posted by: Cain Sep 20 2011, 05:39 AM

Actually, I've run into the Pizza Problem far more often in SR4.5 than I have in SR3. Multi-role deckers were much more viable in SR3: the combat decker in the main book looks suspiciously like a middleweight sam. Decker/Riggers were also a more viable combination, and decker adepts could be very frightening. By having everybody and their brother keep their secure files in offline storage (something that doesn't seem to exist in SR4.5), you could easily get the decker to come on the run.

In my Sr4.0 game, right now I've got a Submerged otaku with Resonance 9. Between Info Sortilage and Resonance Realm searches, there's no information the character cannot find, unless it never ever was on an electronic device. Since there's no team face, she does all the legwork. Except for character-specific information or magical recon, there's simply no point in anyone else doing intel gathering-- deckers and otaku are simply better at it. So, the legwork section turns into a one-on-one set of rolls, while everyone else goes to the corner market for pizza pockets.

Posted by: Shortstraw Sep 20 2011, 07:32 AM

I played on sunday and spent 45 minutes chatting with our gunslinger while we waited for the hacker to do his stuff and then another 15 for the mage to do his before we even entered the facility. Also yes character creation is a pain - they should stick a cd with chummer on it to the inside cover of the core book.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 20 2011, 09:13 AM

Then we have different opinions. Which is, of course, perfectly fine.
Because if i am armored thicker than the average car i do not faint from being hit with some pebbles . .
I may fall over because of the force of impact and physics, but if i can unturtle myself i will get up and kill the person responsible for making me look and feel silly!
edit: actually, no, mythbusters proved that even hit with a shotgun people do not fly back . .

Posted by: Bigity Sep 20 2011, 01:59 PM

Nah, they'd rather get you to buy the 'official' tool that costs money, and doesn't even support anything beyond the core book yet - which will cost you more money each time they add support for another book. It is a very nice tool though. I'll stick with Chummer though.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 20 2011, 03:00 PM

Indeed... And fixed that for you above.

Posted by: ElFenrir Sep 20 2011, 04:10 PM

Alright, I'll throw my hat in. I will also echo the subjectiveness of this; It's a highly YMMV zone, and sometimes, what some folks favor, others don't. But I'll go down the list here of some of my own personal likes and dislikes from the changes. For a bit of background, I started Shadowrun in about 1994, with Second Edition, and have played almost every character type. I'll be comparing 3 and 4.5.

Personal Pros of 3e:

*I liked the power level of starting characters. (See Con of 4e section for a better explanation.)

*I loved the pools. Combat, spell, and the like-I liked the extra layer of strategy they involved.

*I like how high skills actually strongly meant something, but at the same time you didn't want to neglect your attributes-but Skills still held a lot more weight.

*Rules were spelled out very clearly(see Cons of 3e, however.)

*Variable TN's. I loved these, and I felt they just generally made things a bit more meaty somehow.

*Magical flavor overall. I loved how mages and shamans worked, the additions that Magic in the Shadows brought, and the whole nine.


Personal Cons of 3e:

*Some of the rules, while tightly written, could be tough to find. They were well spelled out, like I said, but sometimes we could waste a lot of time trying to find a particular rule.

*Vehicle combat drove me bonkers and actually drove me off of playing riggers.

*Matrix combat drove me almost as bonkers, though it didn't quite scare me off of hackers.

*Didn't like the martial arts rules too much that came later.

*Variable TN's had a darkside-as mentioned, some things could take forever if people ended up with horribly high TN modifiers.

*Cyberlimbs were extremely, IMO, badly designed. It's a 'man meets magic and machine' but cyberlimbs were just horribly priced and underpowered for what you had to pay for them.

Personal Pros of 4e:

*In a direct opposite of a 3e Con, Cybelimbs in 4e are just *so much better* in every which way. They're actually affordable(for a game that was about crazy chrome stuff to start-you should have seen some of the old artwork-cyberlimbs were insanely expensive to tweak out and you could only really do one if you went that route.) I cannot praise what they did with cyberlimbs enough.

*Easy to teach, that's for sure. I think partially the writing and partially Skill + Attribute rolls, I find it quite easy to show new players.

*Book is generally, IMO, well laid out and stuff is easy to find. Very nice looking, as well. Has some excellent support books as well(I love Augmentation and Arsenal.)

*I much prefer 4e Martial Arts than 3e. I have a lot of fun with these.

*Vehicle rules made me want to play Riggers again.

Personal Cons of 4e:

*I may be a bit basted for this, but here goes. I preferred the general higher character power in 3e. I LIKE playing my 'higher than average' badass. I like a low to moderate power game now and again, but 3e characters seemed like they've been around the block a few times. Now, with Karmagen you can bring that back-and I'm not talking even about uberpower munchkin land. I'm no fan of a munchkin who can do it all and never fails. I personally just prefer a character who can be a little heavier out of the gate, and I find 400 BP rather restrictive in that. This also goes into my second note. You CAN make some pretty powerful builds with 400 but it requires metagaming and often stretching out your concept; that's another thing-while I like a power level a cut or two above average, I don't like to metagame heavily to get there. Now, this is fixed with a houserule-but I actually find sometimes tacking on or taking away BP can cause some pretty weird balance issues that I didn't get using the 120 Build Points or Priority of SR3.

*The BP Chargen system is just...sloppy, IMO. First off, it brings in metagaming even more than I like to. I love a good bit of number tweaking, but I don't like sinking my concept. With this, people have actually run into ''Damnit, I need 20 more BP. Well, I guess i can play an Ork!'' I just think 4.5 would be stronger overall if it just defaulted to the Karmagen system(using the German eratta-5x Attribute, racial cost.) Karmagen has it's flaws, many of which have been discussed(the two big ones are the near necessary houseruling for Awakened Human to even be able to have them get the same stat spread as 400 BP, and the fact that races with high stats need to pay a lot to actually focus on them.) It's not perfect, but I feel it just works *so* much better than the BP system.

*Not a big AR fan. Gimme an old fashioned cyberdeck. Pure flavor here.

*High Attributes hold much more weight than high skills. I also don't like the artificial skill caps.

*Magic flavor change. Mostly fluff, I did prefer the Hermetic=Elementals Shamans=Nature spirits, and then there were other versions of that. Shamans having to purchase their Mentor Spirit.

And that breaks it down for me. Even though I seem a bit hard on 4e, I still play it a lot these days-I just use Karmagen for character gen and sometimes still have cyberdecks make their appearance.

Posted by: tete Sep 20 2011, 04:16 PM

except 4e Magic attribute != 3e Magic attribute. It more is a combination of the old Magic attribute + Spell Pool. Other than overcasting the old Magic attribute didn't do much.

Posted by: Kirk Sep 20 2011, 08:33 PM

My reason for thinking so is that I've been around when people are shot while wearing armor. Yep, bullet does not penetrate. It does, on the other hand, tend to leave a serious mark. When it hits the chest it sometimes breaks ribs and always causes an involuntary chest compression.

So you suffer, and if beat enough suffer more, but at the same time still have all your "base health points". Unless, of course, it hammers the armor enough to break some ribs and such.

A car's armor is rather thin, once you get down to it. If you don't think so, take a bat or a pistol to the car door and see for yourself.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 20 2011, 08:47 PM

Dude. THAT ain't armor . . . That's STRUCTURE/BODY.
ARMOR is the 1 finger thick plate of steel/kevlar welded to the outside or the inside of the chassis, depending on wether or not people should know it's there.
Furthermore, if you have Kevlar over plates, you usually won't feel much aside from a shove, depending on the round used on your body i think.
If you ONLY use kevlar? Yes, then you get bruises/cracked ribs, but Kevlar over Plates or plates over kevlar? Soft and hard armor both? Sometimes sandwiched?
Yes, you are basically the michelin-man, but damn it, if somebody wants to hurt you, they have to basically pierce three layers of armor, one of which is rigid!
This means one layer of Kevlar or Steel-Weave or what ever is going to slow the bullet down enough so it does not break the plates behind that layer.
Then the plates in the layer behind that are going to catch the deformation of the first layer and spread out the physical force over more surface than before.
And then the THIRD layer of Armor, which is probably kevlar again, because, honestly, form fitting full body suit is just kevlar underoos, will take the impact
of the plate against your body and cushion that a bit more while catching splinters that may have broken lose from the plate in the second layer of armor . . .

With the less than armor damage=stun it simply means that no matter how armored you are, you usually can be simply killed by being shot twice.
Once to send you off into la la land because of the huge stun damage you just ate, and then somebody simply calmly walks up to your prone body and puts one into your nose, eye, ear or mouth to off you . .

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 20 2011, 08:49 PM

And Your Point?

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 20 2011, 08:51 PM

My point being, that stun damage from physical is dumb. ._.

Posted by: Seerow Sep 20 2011, 08:53 PM

If you're complaining about the way armor converts to stun, my group recently instituted a house rule: If armor is higher than the DV, rather than converting wholly to stun, it converts half the damage to stun. This actually lets the high armored person function longer, and makes it so that the guy with high armor isn't tempted mid fight to start taking armor off because another shot will knock him unconcious, but he could still take 2-3 more hits if it was physical, and even more if he's able to get first aid or a heal spell.

Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 20 2011, 09:24 PM

Yes, this is a bit better. Not much, but it at least gives a reason to have more than enough armor . .

Posted by: Bigity Sep 20 2011, 09:25 PM

It's again one of the rules that doesn't (can't?) mirror reality.

Getting shot with a vest on hurts, but then you have guys like the north hollywood shootout guys wearing full military armor suits taking dozens (or more) of rounds and they remain up and fighting until someone brings some bigger bullets.

Posted by: Critias Sep 20 2011, 09:37 PM

Well, it kind of can mirror reality (at least given the description you gave), but it all depends on what you think their Body scores were like, what kind of die pools the cops shooting at them had, etc, etc. It's certainly possible for Shadowrun characters to take "dozens of rounds" and remain up and fighting, after all. It's also possible for them to get one-shotted.

That's kind of the beauty of the game, to me.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 20 2011, 09:42 PM

You'd have to have soft and hard armor. Either in addition to, or instead of, the B/I split.

Posted by: galenbd Sep 21 2011, 04:32 PM

I find it interesting that no one has commented on the Skill cap. In Shadowrun 3 there was no skill cap. Ya pay yer Karma, ya get yer skill.

In Shadowrun 4, there's a skill cap at 6. Ref Core book page 270.

That's what breaks SR4 for me. That cap causes everyone to top out the same primary skills for the Archetype. That leaves the Archetypes looking the same as they advance. The skills I used in SR3 varied widely from the norm. I just haven't seen how I can do that in SR4.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 21 2011, 04:58 PM

There should be a Cap. I like it at 6/7, personally, as that provides a range of 9 Skill levels. Whether you raise it to 9 or 12 due to preference, though, I think that it should still be capped out. There should be NO unlimited improvement. Human capabilities do have a functional limit.

Posted by: Cain Sep 21 2011, 05:07 PM

Humans have no theoretical limit, but there is a functional/practical limit. After a certain point, the improvements you see take so much more time to learn, you need to be a genius to reach them.

However, that is modeled in SR3, with the escalating karma costs. After a certain point, the diminishing returns means it's better to invest elsewhere. SR4.5 does keep escalating karma costs, but since raising skills are so cheap and there's no linked attribute, it's easier to hyperinflate a skill pool with karma, especially if there was no cap. I think they could have kept the no-cap system if they kept the linked attribute mechanic.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Sep 21 2011, 06:19 PM

Though in SR1 the 4L1 Light pistol was pretty easy to stage up!

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 21 2011, 06:22 PM

And also Down...

Posted by: Bigity Sep 21 2011, 06:27 PM

And seeing how each armor point was an automatic success on the resistance roll.....