I like skill groups. I missed firearms from 2e. While I agree the cost is BS I don't want tons of skills. I want Firearms!

I still see no reason why I can take Longarms 6 and still have no idea how to fire a pistol or, even worse, an assault rifle.

The best illustration of how weird firearms skill rules are is the assault rifle in Arsenal that can be reconfigured into a SMG, LMG or rifle. Who would ever take this? Someone who had Automatics, Longarms and Heavy Weapons all high? Just strikes me as too much effort being put into a "weapon system" where the way you use it is fundamentally the same no matter which barrel is on.

I personally like Skill Groups. In relation to skills they are balanced.

Overall however, the cost is simply too high. At least that is my glance.

You can easily take one group - for some groups and builds, its a good idea. Some you'd want multiples. Unfortunately the BP system falls far short in accomodating most builds that would require this - at least to any sort of degree of competency. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

- J.

Yeah, 3 skill groups at a level of 4 would be 120 BP--that's a lot to ask out of a 400 BP character spending 200 BP (usually) on attributes alone.

Hence Franks's house rules for character creation.

12-14 dice is better than the "typical opposition" unless you're playing a game where your GM is consistently throwing low essence cybertrolls at you in an attempt to kill your cheesed out character.

I hate to say it, but you're wrong on this point.

Guys, you're arguing about whether or not a 3rd level Fighter is cool enough for a game, or a 15th level Fighter is the absolute minimum you should bring to the table to be a useful member of the party.

It's a power level thing. A table by table thing, a game by game thing. Neither one's right, neither one's wrong. It all comes down to the GM and the group and what levels they are aiming for.

Seconded.

I don't think those of us that like group skills are really arguing that they are done well, just that we like them conceptually. I really think it was an attempt to appease old grognards like me by bringing back the 1e/2e style skills. I appreciate the attempt though the cost just doesn't work out.

I don't think that's the argument. Those in favor of skill groups largely say "I'm not gimping myself, this is a good idea." I want to disillusion people. Skillgroups are gimpy most of the time, especially the most common-seeming ones, Firearms, Close Combat, and Athletics. That doesn't mean it's wrong to take them. You should take them if you want a versatile but gimpy character. If that's how your table plays, then that's what you should make. Just don't go telling me it doesn't gimp you. What people are arguing, to use your analogy, is that a 3rd level fighter is actually just as good as a 15th level fighter. Not in terms of their own table only, but in the absolute sense. That's why it's a controversy. If people just said "I don't even care about twinking out, I want a less powerful character because that's how we play," then I'd agree with them and that would be the end of it.

It might not be how the thread started, but it's certainly what it seems to have devolved into. People stopped talking skill groups, and started talking "you should have 12-14 dice" versus "you should have 20+ dice" several posts ago. I'll admit it's not entirely contained to this thread, so my exasperation at it isn't necessarily this thread's fault...but it's been coming up a lot lately, and I just don't get it.

There's no right or wrong way to play, and there's no right or wrong concrete power level, or cut-off point where you have too few, too many, or just the right amount of dice to be a competent Shadowrunner. That all varies from table to table, is what I'm saying, and arguing about one build being optimized and one build being gimped -- whether talking skill groups in particular or just total die pools in general -- is just silly to me, because power level varies so much from game to game.

I like skill groups. Why? Because even though they are available, I do not have to use them when I build a character!

Now Magic is a different story, get rid of it, I never use it, I need more guns descriptions!

You know, I don't think I've ever made a character with SOME of the Athletics skills (Gymnastics, say) that didn't also regularly need to access the rest of the skill group. Usually Firearms can be left behind, but there are some characters that do legitimately need all of the skills in question. Part of this may be due to how vague "automatics" is in terms of when it's applicable, and the fact that I rule that you only roll automatics when firing in burst or full auto. Close combat is largely a waste, though.

Outdoors? If you're making the kind of character that has any of those skills, they will probably want all of them.

Well obviously, they were talking about optimization. What point is there discussing builds if not for optimization's sake? If you don't want to optimize, make one that's good enough for you, and go ahead. I think there's a valid question whether optimizing means 12-14 dice, which is less effective but saves points, or whether it means 18+ dice, which obviously costs a lot more. Non-optimization isn't a discussion topic, its alpha and omega is literally "everything is good and nothing sucks." If you don't care about efficiency at all, you can't have a meaningful conversation about the stats and dice pools of your builds. I'm not saying it's wrong not to care, but I am saying that it's wrong to tell people that there's no standards involved. There is one standard, and that's efficiency, which is nothing more than an analysis of cost vs. benefit. You can ignore the standard, but that doesn't make it go away or lose meaning.

No arguments Glyph... As I said, Shadowrun is a Damn Deadly game...

I would approach it from a different angle... It is not about efficiency, it is about concept, and the Most Optimized character tends to lose out to concept a lot when one takes into account the descriptive text in the skills sections... not everyone is the absolute best in the world, except when you are a Shadowrunner, apparently... I cannot tell you how many characters I have seen posted that all had the requisite Skill at 6/7 and the requisite attribute at the highest possible level based upon metatype... and for what? a few extra dice...

I tend to think that the skill ratings (though only seperated by a single die each) are actually differentiated a great deal more by descriptive fluff... Professional Means something... Veteran Means something else entirely and Best of the Best is another ball of wax completely... yet it seems that everyone has to be at that Optiomal level, and that makes no sense... very few characters are apparently happy being Professional grade runners, they always have to be the absolute best in the business...

What is wrong with this picture?...

Anyway, as for the Original Topic... I tend to use Groups when it suits the character to have all of the skills... is it more efficient to have a Automatics skill at 5 than to have the group at 4... probably, but sometimes the concept requires equal competence in all skills of the group...

My pittance for the evening...

The problem is that what you are arguing about isn't the same thing others are. Sure 18 dice= more than 12 dice, and maybe you could have sued those 6 dice better etc. But the thing about skill groups is that for some people they fit the character concept better. While sure it would be more point efficient to take automatics and ignore the rest, its basically puking all over many character concepts.

I don't think anyone has actually argued that skill groups are point efficient. They have argued that they like them, for them 12 dice is plenty, and they can get there with skill groups which fits there character concept better than just automatics at 6.

I think tete has the right of it. Which is a shame, since in my experience the groups actually model character concepts a heck of a lot better than the overly specific skill system of 3e and 4e.

Well firearms is a poor skill to look at. Automatics takes the place of almost everything (machine pistols, smgs, assault weapons, etc). Truthfully I break it down to Crossbows, pistols and rifles and all exotics that rely on a pistol grip or weapons fired from the shoulder (this include LMG and MMG). This includes gyrojets and lasers. Close combat would be the same for monofilament whips, cyberspurs, etc.

I don't view the skill groups as having only the assigned skills it would include the use of similar principles, function or related skills. I think this is a more fair use for getting the skill groups. A lot of exotic weapon skills don't get used much or do not justify buying the skill to use them. This renders them in the cool, but never purchased category. Now some skill groups such as conjuring and sorcery are useful regardless.

One of the biggest flaws in 4e for me is that the mechanics seem to consistently fight the fluff and not assist it along. Skills are a good example, 1 die means very little mechanically but in the fluff its the difference between an amateur and a pro, a veteran and one of the worlds best.

Well, let me say this:

Well, considering that the rifle and all of its modifications are listed exclusively within the assault rifle ledger, it is technically true that all of its forms use the Automatics skill.

Overcannon, I want to tell you that I love you. However, I believe you're incorrect in this one isolated case. Arsenal, pg 27:

"The configurations require different skills to be used properly: Automatics for the assault rifle and submachine gun configuration, Heavy Weapons for the LMG configuration, and Longarms for the rifle configuration. All configurations use assault rifle ammunition but different ammo clips."

This is just for the Steyr AUG-CSL.

Well, that's actually a good point. But then again, it's not like 3rd ed didn't have a scaling problem. There, the difference between world class and average was 3 dice, but that didn't have a very consistent value. The 3 dice could be +2 successes on TN 2, but equal failure on TN12. So depending on what you're doing, the difference between average and world class means almost nothing in SR3. By comparison, a world class person is always better than an average person at all times and in all situations in SR4.

All in all, the fluff on skill ratings has always been fucked. That chart isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and never has been. 6 has always been the "basic" rating for a character's speciality, and the fluff calling that world class just doesn't back that up. The chart only works in a world of unaugmented humans -- 6 is world class today, but not in the 2070s where you can pump up way beyond 6. If it was really world class, then shadowrunners with 22 dice shouldn't even exist. IMO, the system is good. The 4e developers made the same mistake in 4e that they did in 3e. They kept a skill/attribute fluff that really doesn't have anything to do with the system. I don't think that's a flaw with the system, I think it's a problem with the fluff. The system rocks, the fluff is completely inconsequential on this point. The way to look at it, IMO, is that the fluff fails to explain the system, not that the system fails to support the fluff. The system is the most important aspect because it determines game balance and enjoyability of play. If we built the system after the fluff, we'd end up with a real turd of a game. Just like all those turd characters that are built concept first, sheet later, and couldn't handle a small handful of the weakest grunts in the book (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I wouldn't put it quite so critically, Larme. I'd imagine the point that the writers of the fluff were trying to make is "6 skill is hard to get. You can have it because you've worked hard for the Karma, RP'd the training and whatnot (you have, haven't you?), and besides, the reason you're a runner is because you're the cream of the crop. Just keep in mind that goons off the street aren't supposed to have this level of skill."

Think of it as their plea to minimize power inflation.

I have but one question for this thread.

If you really liked the days of "firearms" and "stealth" why not bring back vague skills?

I mean the point efficiency of skills versus attribute is so awful having general skills might bring things back to sanity.

First off 2 to 3 is the average skill not 6. This is not the previous editions where basically everyone had uncapped skills so a level 6 in preSR4 is equivalent to a 4 in SR4a. The diference between 6 and 7 dice is the ability to hit targets at extreme range without using aim actions, smartguns and laser sights. We think 1 die difference isn't much, but once you put the modifiers in it can be the difference between using edge to hit or being able to make a shot without anything special.