Shadowrun 4 Anniversary Changes Options

[Muspellsheimr]

It was brought up in another thread (Petition, I believe) that those arguing against the changes in the SR4A are 'a vocal minority', and that the majority are happy with the changes. I have always despised that counterpoint, because it is equally lacking in support as saying the vast majority oppose a change.

As such, I am presenting this as a poll in an attempt to get a better overall view of opinions, that the developers will hopefully use for deciding what alterations to make, if any.



The system I have proposed for Attribute Advancement is as follows:
Note: This is a cut-and-paste from my personal Karma Generation system. It is not intended to support Karma Generation, but to explain how I believe attribute increases should be handled.

Step 3: Purchase Attributes
Next, purchase the characters attributes (including special attributes). Characters begin with the minimum attribute ratings defined by their race/metatype (including Templates). Before determining the advancement cost of an attribute, apply the inverse of any racial modifiers. To determine a racial modifier to an attribute, calculate the difference between the races maximum & 6 (an Elf has 8 maximum Charisma, the racial modifier is +2; a Dwarf has 5 maximum Reaction, the racial modifier is -1). The cost of increasing an Attribute is New Rating x 5 Karma.

Example: John wishes to increase his Trolls Body from 5 to 6. Because a Troll has +4 Body, the cost is (6-4) x 5, or 10 Karma.

Example: John then decides to increase his Trolls Charisma from 1 to 2. A Troll has -2 Charisma, so the cost is (2+2) x 5, or 20 Karma.

[pbangarth]

I would prefer to see a modification in Drain such that overcasting any spell, Combat or otherwise, incurs a significant likelihood of suffering Drain, even for a character tricked out to resist Drain.

[ElFenrir]

Voted. As most know, I prefer the Attribute x3 Karma system, with a sidebar option of ''If you want to slow down or speed up advancement'', with a quick rundown of other options, New Rating x 5 included. Yes, a GM can always choose, but I prefer for x3 to be the baseline(and as I've said before, with a group that gets to play not as often, this works best for us.) I mean, I do think your system is good, and if I DID ever want to use 5x Advancement(say we had a group that met very often and ended up with a lot of Karma or something), i'd use yours, but til then, I like the reasonable 3x costs, as I prefer natural, raw potential in characters with more reasonable, ''mid'' level skills and maybe that one or two that you are really super-good at. It just feels better to me, as I, in real life, know far more people that have more raw potential than they do actual training in something. (yeah, i try to keep real life out of shadowrun as much as possible, but this just comes to mind.)

Spells? I say keep em as SR4. IMO, each problem that seems to be fixed seems to add new ones.

And yeah, ads? Keep em in the front or back.

[It trolls!]

Voted "Other" on the casting rule. I'd nix the current rule and instead of a flat drain increase, I'd review drain cost of indirect combat spells.
To stop overcasting mania, I'd add the rule that the level of overcasting adds directly to the drain DV.

[Andinel]

The cost for raising Attributes really was too low in SR4, a change I like a lot in SR4A. I don't mind the ads either; they're small and in all are a very minor inconvenience, if that at all.

For direct combat spells, I'm with It trolls! on this. Overcasting should be discouraged by making it hurt more, so increase the drain DVs for overcasting, not for all direct combat spells.

[Muspellsheimr]

The cost for raising Attributes really was too low in SR4, a change I like a lot in SR4A.

My question, then, is if you even bothered to look at my proposed change, or consider the impact on metatypes - particularly Trolls (where it becomes all but impossible to increase Strength/Body)?

[Andinel]

I did look at them. Personally, it seems like it could work, but realistically it's going to be a lot harder to add to something that's already high. Yes, it punishes metas, but they get rewarded by their BP discount from the start. Karmagen might need some fixing, but I haven't played in a game with karmagen yet, so it might work for that, but I wouldn't really know. Realistically, for someone already with a Body of 6 or 7, it's going to be a lot harder for them to raise it than it would be for someone with a Body of 2 or 3. I can understand what you want to do from a point of mechanics, but it doesn't make too much sense to me.

[Abschalten]

After thinking about it, even as much as I hate the Attribute x 5 rule, I would be willing to stomach it if Skill Groups were dropped down to x4 or x3. (x4 is more mathematically reasonable in my opinion, considering some groups would give you skills for half price.) This would very much put focus on the most common skills in the game and encourage people to have more of them. Additionally the BP costs in BPgen should be lowered to something like 8BP per rank of a Skill Group to encourage them there as well. Of course if they leave Attribute x 5 in without any sort of help on the skills side (Attributes and Skill Groups both cost x5? Yeah right!) then I'm totally against the change.

See, if you put raising an attribute up against raising a skill group, and make them cost the same, then it's still a no-brainer to raise attributes. But if you lower the cost of skill groups, you make them much more attractive, and the savings (either BP or Karma) can go right back to those attributes that might otherwise be gimped because of the new increase in prices.

Am I making any sense whatsoever?

[crizh]

I was happy just the way things were.

None of the changes above are problems that were causing any significant complaint here on the boards as far as I can tell.

You missed the OR change, that's the one that really twirls my propeller.

The sensors change we knew was coming and we'd asked for the same with some of the others.

These other changes are bolts from the blue and aren't tweaks but major, far reaching architectural alterations.

What really angers me is that they've been snuck into the Anniversary edition. That's just low and struck me as disrespectful.

[ElFenrir]

If Attributes are too fast now, we must really be giving too little Karma, is what I'm thinking.

Since we, on average, give 3-4 a session, it already takes an Ork with a 6 Body(average), 7 weeks(assuming every week) to get a 7, and that's only saving for that one attribute. That's about 1.5-2 months of gameplay, and that's playing every week. Since the Jersey group only really meets about twice a month(again, us making it to about four sessions a year), it's more like 12-14 weeks before seeing a single stat increase for a high stat(and again, that's hoarding for that one stat). For someone bringing a 3 to a 4(12 Karma), that's about six weeks(again, assuming every other week and 4 Karma.) It could be up to eight if a couple are 3-karma weeks.

Since x3 seems to be too fast for folks, I'm thinking 9 karma a week really is more the average given, since that that point, that's a stat every couple weeks(less if they are at 2), in which case, I can see the arguement for wanting them to be x5. But for 3-4 karma a session, two sessions a month? Not too fast at all.

EDIT: Abschalten, I do understand what you are saying. I really, really dislike(almost loathe, but I typically reserve loathing to things that affect me more IRL) the Attribute x5 changes, and would not use them, for reasons above(we just. don't. get to play enough), BUT...and this is a BUT...if skills and groups were lowered to 3x and 1.5 times(the latter for skills), I'd be able to swallow it a BIT more(and also, using Muspel's version of the x5 would also have to be included in this.) ONE other change could let me more into it-if karmagen were tweaked to give more than 750.

I still believe all this change will bring is more BP softmaxing of Attributes and buying them up more with Cyber, and it favors it even more now. It was one of the problems with BP before(even with x3 it was more cost-effective to softmax) and now? Even worse.

[crizh]

After thinking about it, even as much as I hate the Attribute x 5 rule, I would be willing to stomach it if Skill Groups were dropped down to x4 or x3.

How are you compensating Mages and TM's for the 67% increase in the cost of their bread and butter Stat?

[Abschalten]

How are you compensating Mages and TM's for the 67% increase in the cost of their bread and butter Stat?

I'm not, really, but they'd have extra karma to raise their heavy-lifting skills, like Spellcasting, Hacking, Compiling, and the like.

Granted you're right, the cost of raising those skills is still absurd, and it will limit their growth. I think we'll see alot of awakened/emerged characters choosing to initiate or submerge more often than they raise their Magic or Resonance stat.

But part of the gouge in playing a magician or TM is that with all the karma they put into that special attribute, they have little to go elsewhere. At least this way they can raise up their major skill groups a little more cheaply, and that ought to be worth SOMETHING to them.

[Muspellsheimr]

I did look at them. Personally, it seems like it could work, but realistically it's going to be a lot harder to add to something that's already high. Yes, it punishes metas, but they get rewarded by their BP discount from the start. Karmagen might need some fixing, but I haven't played in a game with karmagen yet, so it might work for that, but I wouldn't really know. Realistically, for someone already with a Body of 6 or 7, it's going to be a lot harder for them to raise it than it would be for someone with a Body of 2 or 3. I can understand what you want to do from a point of mechanics, but it doesn't make too much sense to me.

Gameplay, & thus mechanics (at least in this case) should always come first. That being said, putting on 20kg of muscle mass would be incredibly difficult for a Human. For a Troll, however, that represents a huge amount less in proportion, & thus would be significantly easier.

[Starmage21]

How are you compensating Mages and TM's for the 67% increase in the cost of their bread and butter Stat?

By increasing the drain on their bread and butter spells!

BWAHAHAHA

[Cardul]

I like the changes, and here is why:

1) The emphasis should have always been on skills, not attributes. What the change does is make increasing an attribute cost the same as raising a skill group. When you stop and think about it, it is still a bargain. Agility has 18 skills under it, including most of the combat skills. Body, yeah, it has only a couple skills in it, but it adds to a damage resistance rolls, disease resistance rolls, fatigue tests, and every 2 points in it boosts your physical damage track. You get alot for every attribute you purchase up, more then purchasing up a skill group.

2) Sure, Overcasting is still a "problem." Witht he clarification in antoher thread that the casting mage can choose how many of his net successes(not Gross Successes, but Net Successes) to put into the damage value of the Direct Combat spell, it gives the mage the option, and remember that net successes is still capped at the Force of the spell, and in the games I have played in, I have never seen more then 2 or so net successes from a realisticly built, non-min-maxed mage, after the resistance tests.

3) I like the ads for how they guide a new player who is just getting into the game on where to go next for more of what they are looking for. They are placed in small blocks, and do not really take away much of anything, and are placed where they make the most sense.

4) Over all, I think the changes move the game mechanically back to Shadowrun, not "D&D with tech," and I am very glad to see them.

[Muspellsheimr]

1) Again, you are entirely ignoring the impact on metatypes, & how to address it. I agree that the cost should have been increased, but how it was increased is bullshit.

2) Direct Combat spell effectiveness has been barely affected, while Overcasting is being encouraged. This deviates from full & logic. Again, I feel they needed to be reduced in power, but this was not a good way of doing so.

3) And how would they 'not' guide a new player to new material if it was at the beginning of the book, instead of spread throughout?

4) How do you get that? The changes neither move it towards "D&D" or away - it was already distinctly different & this affects that in absolutely no way whatsoever.

[ElFenrir]

Not wanting to get too far into a stat-weight discussion because I did mention it in another thread, this quote did sort of catch me:

You get alot for every attribute you purchase up, more then purchasing up a skill group.

Strength is even more useless under this. You literally get nothing for it you can't get with less Karma.

10 Karma gets you a martial art style, which you can use for +1 DV. You can do this 3 times. Critical Strike adds more, Bone Lacing adds more, Hardliners can help with this as well for unarmed; also see Shock Gloves and Stun Batons. Many blades have large DV modifiers(vibro-sword, for example.)

It links to 3 attributes. Yes, they are fairly useful, but they can also be increased in other ways(Synthacardium typically being the big one, and they are also cheaply increased via Adept powers, being non combat skills.)

Lifting rules haven't changed, giving it some alright value there, but it just doesn't come into play that much, and I think the lifting rules could do with some fixing.

It doesn't affect Armor worn(which would also help.)


Under 5x Karma rules, there is no reason for someone to have a strength of more than a mailman(which I'd say is about 3.) And for folks like myself who actually like the stat for flavor purposes, we actually get hosed by this, because we raise it over something that might actually be better; at least under x3 karma we don't have to suffer as much for doing it. Again, this really hits metas(under the RAW change) a lot, since Orks and Trolls already get hosed, now there is really no reason to even look at this stat, let alone even considering paying 20-30 Karma to raise it.

[Angier]

I, too, like the changes.

1) Attributes are still TOO cheap compared what you get for your karma. Especially compared to what awakened or emergent character builds could do with them. The raise in cost was the right way to get them more in line with mundane builds. I had the opportunity to test the change after recalculating the characters in my group. It did wonders, nerfing the awakened as they started to realize that this game is about being a team.

2) Overcasting a DCS was always the best choice to apply a combat spell. the change didn't adress that. It adressed the difference between DCS and ICS comparing what you get for your drain damage. It didn't nerf DCS-Hitmages as hard as the change in attribute cost but it made ICS-Hitmages more fun to play compared (as they now won't feel as sacked as before) to them.

3) As being a SR4 player since '07 I already was familiar with the other books thus the ads aren't useful for me. But I see what they did there (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Fuchs]

I don't really have trouble with making it harder for metas to raise high stats even higher - I like that.

[Aaron]

Hm.

[hermit]

Necessary changes to Attribute cost were necessary.

Maybe the Karmabuild system will get an overhaul, it might need one. Maybe karma levels will just be upped a tad. It is still a bit more viable as BP build, but the possibuilities aren't as sky high anymore.

I feel Muspellsheimr's system is too convoluted, and I don't see why metas need a Karma discount. Trolls have always needed more karfma to max out their body and strength than humans. Also, muscle growth is not linear with creature size. If that is felt by trolls, fine; they were a tad overpowered, especially considering the official armour ratings that would allow them insanely thick armour, anyway. If it makes mages and technos bleed, good, they really needed some nerfing.

Don't care much for the drain levels really, as a non mage player, but since it makes casting one shot knockout stun bolts like a machine gun apparently less appealing, good change. Mages were overvalued in SR4 too.

As for the ads, meh, they're five 1/3 page inserts. That's nothing I see as a reason to get all uppity about. Check out a Games Workshop 'sourcebook' if you want to see a salesmanly, commercial clustered games product (and some seriously bad writing).

[Critias]

I was tempted to go "other" for everything, with my explanation then being "Bring back SR3, woooooooo!" Then maybe I'd light something on fire, or get a crowd to flip over a cop car, or something, I wasn't sure. I fought the urge, though -- as much as I prefer other editions to 4th, I like 4.5's changes even less (or, at least, these controversial two, as far as gameplay is concerned).

I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering what they were trying to fix with the Drain thing (since we've heard over and over again it wasn't meant to address Overcasting, which is what most people seem to agree was the main issue with direct-combat spells...and that issue's just gotten worse, not better). I've yet to play a mage myself so I don't feel as strongly about this one as I do attribute costs, but it still seems like a horrible fix to the "direct combat spells are too effective" problem, because every time I've seen those spells seem to be too effective, it's been when folks Overcast.

I'm not fan at all of increasing the XP cost of friggin' anything. If too many people were maxing out attributes and not enough were spending xp for skills...why not lower the cost of skills (instead of increasing the XP requirement for attributes, and totally breaking the bank with the costs of skillsofts)? With so much cyberware/bioware already on the market for boosting attributes, all they've done is make the "shortcut" route (technology instead of training) all that much more appealing...which, combined with the increased cost in increasing Magic, really bones some characters (like Adepts).

And, hell, if nothing else lowering the cost of skills a little would have everyone going "Sweet, extra xp!" or "Yay, skills are on sale!" right now, instead of the invisible GM in the sky reaching down and raising prices. Everyone loves that little floating smiley face motherfucker in Wal-Mart that changes signs for the better, right? But if he flew around, whistling a cheery tune while he marked stuff up, someone would've busted the glass in sporting goods to get a shotgun, and busted him like a clay pigeon by now. Everyone likes decreased prices. No one likes getting jabbed in the ballsac by the nerf bat.

[ElFenrir]

I'm not fan at all of increasing the XP cost of friggin' anything. If too many people were maxing out attributes and not enough were spending xp for skills...why not lower the cost of skills (instead of increasing the XP requirement for attributes, and totally breaking the bank with the costs of skillsofts)? With so much cyberware/bioware already on the market for boosting attributes, all they've done is make the "shortcut" route (technology instead of training) all that much more appealing...which, combined with the increased cost in increasing Magic, really bones some characters (like Adepts).

And, hell, if nothing else lowering the cost of skills a little would have everyone going "Sweet, extra xp!" or "Yay, skills are on sale!" right now, instead of the invisible GM in the sky reaching down and raising prices. Everyone loves that little floating smiley face motherfucker in Wal-Mart that changes signs for the better, right? But if he flew around, whistling a cheery tune while he marked stuff up, someone would've busted the glass in sporting goods to get a shotgun, and busted him like a clay pigeon by now. Everyone likes decreased prices. No one likes getting jabbed in the ballsac by the nerf bat.

Damn, I think you managed to really say what I had in my head here and I couldn't figure out how. I am in total agreement that all this is going to do is bone adepts/awakened/emerged(adepts worst of all), and just make the bio-versions that much more likeable. But yes...if skill prices had been lowered instead, I agree, you'd see a lot more probably. With skills much lower(say, 1x New Rating for regular, 3x for Groups), even if attributes were at x3, I almost guarentee someone would look at that 15 Karma, and think, ''hmm...I can either up my Intuition to a 5, or up these 2 5's I have to 6's and still have 3 Karma left over to up my 2 to a 3...' I think they'd end up taking the latter. I know I would.

[Muspellsheimr]

I feel Muspellsheimr's system is too convoluted, and I don't see why metas need a Karma discount.

My system does not give metatypes a discount. What it does alter the base system so it does not charge them twice.

Such characters have already paid for their bonuses to attributes, so why are you charging them a second time to increase those attributes (everything above what the Human would be paying, being part of this second cost).

[Ayeohx]

So far I'm digging the changes.

I've always thought that for the BPs metahumans get quite a sweet deal. They get a bunch of free stats, some higher maximums and a few nifty abilities. They don't even have to pay up their "negative" stats. Sure, a troll isn't normally going to be a master summoner, but that's probably not why you chose him, right?
The karma cost system is far from perfect, IMO, so a few minor adjustments don't anger me. Heck, a full revision would have been appreciated.

And why are we angry about the advertisements? They are well done and point get new gamers excited about new material.