[X] My Assistant

[Irion]

@Mäx

God damm those pesky randomly teleporting grenades

I do not know whos sig it was:
You do not have to worry about the bullet with your name on, the problem is the bullet addressed "to who it might concerne".

Not so true for bullets in SR but very true for granades...

An other point for body are sicknesses. So I guess, a body of 3 is reasonable.

[Traul]

Oh, having armor is always a nice idea. But on the other hand, wearing all the armor you possibly can will get you into even more trouble. Running around in full SWAT armor means you *will* get shot at first.

When did "Geek the Mage first!" go out of style?

[Irion]

The mage is the guy with all the armor...
Anyway: Armor gets you unwanted attention.
And yes, it is true the line from best to worse goes:
Not get shot at-dodge the bullet-soak the damage-surive the shot...

Unless your GM does not pay any attention to the world, wearing heavy armor is not a good idea.
(Yes, I am just the plumber. Why are you wearing a full body armor? Rats?)

Always reminds me of Fallout 1 and 2 where you run around in Brotherhood or Enclave armor at the end.
It tends to be quite funny if you go the speak or sneaky way in "older" quests. Or some guys trying to shoot you with a shotgun...

[Cain]

When did "Geek the Mage first!" go out of style?

Unless you've got a mage on your side, how do you know which one's the mage until he casts a spell? And even when you have a mage on your side, what happens when the other guy's got Masking?

When I play mages, I rely heavily on disguises, so you can't tell if I'm just a suit caught up in the fight, or maybe a janitor or delivery boy. Heavy armor would hurt that tactic. If I have to go in openly, I go in behind the heavy hitters; and even then, I've been known to festoon my character with tech-gizmos and phony cyber so people won't think I'm a mage until I cast a spell. And then, it's too late.

Sometimes I don't even need to go in at all, or at least not close. I can send in bound spirits to do some of the heavy work. What's more, it works wonders when combined with a disguise: Confusion is such a nifty power. There's no reason to expose myself; that's the street sam's job.

[Traul]

Unless you've got a mage on your side, how do you know which one's the mage until he casts a spell? And even when you have a mage on your side, what happens when the other guy's got Masking?

Easy: the mage is the wimp struggling with the weight of his armor. And if he's not a mage, he's a hacker or some other nasty stuff. When in doubt, shoot the wimp. Focusing on the tank is bad tactics. Bad tactics are good for gangers but trained response teams should know better.

[Mäx]

Easy: the mage is the wimp struggling with the weight of his armor. And if he's not a mage, he's a hacker or some other nasty stuff. When in doubt, shoot the wimp. Focusing on the tank is bad tactics. Bad tactics are good for gangers but trained response teams should know better.

When the Troll is not only armored like a tank but armed like one as-well, you ignore him on your own peril (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Cain]

Exactly. Aiming for the wimp is stupid; you want to take out the biggest threat first. That's usually the ork or troll, especially if they have anything shotgun-sized or bigger. A smart mage won't even look like a threat: they'll wear "normal clothing" armor, so they don't look as badass. Heck, mages might just take cover under a desk or a car, and command spirits.

[Irion]

But still body one is quite a tough choice. I mean tear gas could probably kill you.

PS: And if the mage looks on to you, he will probably fry your ass with an overcasted indirect combat spell, which would be burning through your armor anyway.

[Ryu]

Unless your GM does not pay any attention to the world, wearing heavy armor is not a good idea.
(Yes, I am just the plumber. Why are you wearing a full body armor? Rats?)

One does not mess with the Department of Water and Wastewater Management...

[suoq]

The problem with the discussion is that so many people are under the belief that their style of play DEFINES how useful attributes are for everyone else. This should be an obvious fallacy, but nevertheless, people are charging the machinegun nest.

If staying in the van is a viable tactic:

Your GM is not using the Detect Hidden Node or Trace User actions.
The players are not taking on challenges that require matrix users to be at the target location.

If attacking a central strong point ("the machine gun nest") is a standard tactic:

your GM is not using flanking or reinforcements to their fullest.
the players are not taking on challenges that require all players be combat capable.

If strength is a dump stat:

the players are not taking on challenges that require athletics skills.

If everyone is shooting at the heavily armored troll:

your GM is making all the NPCs act alike.
your GM does not have NPCs go for the low hanging fruit (aka, the easy kills).
the players are not taking on challenges that require stealth and disguise on the trolls part that includes combat but excludes ideal gear.

Under such conditions, there is no underpowered race because the missions are built around character capabilities. The weaknesses of the characters simply isn't an issue because that table is playing to the characters strength.

This is a fine way to play, and common, but as far as a comparison between character races goes it is, ultimately, meaningless. It's like saying the sample characters in the book are fine because they work at one particular table. From the perspective of that table, yes, they are fine, and yet the vast majority of us (everyone not at that table) realizes just how flawed they are.

[Yerameyahu]

I see a lot of straw men being applied to what I said. Here's what I didn't say:
1) Wear a conspicuous amount of obvious armor.
2) Don't try to dodge/avoid damage.
3) Rely on soaking all damage.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) What I did say is that Body 3-4 is *always* useful, and a little Strength is *always* useful (except, again, for phone-it-in non-characters). I'm not aware that *every* group has a troll tank, btw, nor that you never use Athletics. Now, maybe your build works better with Body 3 and Strength 2 (instead of 4/3), but that's not a big difference. Orks are excellent for almost all characters in almost all cases, that's all. It's hardly a controversial statement.

[Whipstitch]

There's a lot of straw men being applied just about everything that's been said, sadly.

But still body one is quite a tough choice. I mean tear gas could probably kill you.

Body 1 is indeed flimsier than I like to play with but I still don't feel that people are thinking very critically and truly asking themselves at what point a Body 4 character would be appreciably less screwed than one of Cain's scrawnier guys. Ultimately these conversations boil down to opportunity costs and beating whatever thresholds are necessary to get by in a given table environment. And in general, the disease and toxin rules are structured such that willpower and reaction* scores matter as much as whether you have a Body of 1 vs. a Body of 3 or 4 and gear matters most of all. Ultimately if you really want to survive a crab's ridiculous 12P paralyzing sting or to shrug off another wave of VITAS you want Universal Nantidotes and O-Cells, not tusks. Common security responses like Tear Gas and Pepper Punch can often be planned for by taking antidote patches before the job. In the case of ghouls, you want to blast off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

So, yeah, Body is great by virtue of the sheer number of nitty-gritty survival situations it affects and the ability to pile on the cheapest armor sources. But with that said, your character won't necessarily just disintegrate if they stop at 2 instead of 3.

*Obviously fully resisting the toxins that bestow Nausea or Paralysis in the first place is the ideal outcome, but requiring a 6+ power before you are truly incapacitated by the secondary effects is a nice consolation prize and is often more reliable to boot.

Man, sorry about all the edits. I'm kinda loopy from painkillers due to breaking my collarbone.

This post has been edited by Whipstitch: Jul 23 2011, 06:50 PM

[KarmaInferno]

I was going to say something about playing a low STR/BOD character, but I realized I don't, not really. The character in question never leaves her vehicle, so her STR and BOD are whatever her vehicle's stats are.

My other main SR character has STR 2, but BOD 5. He's a tough old man. Human, because it fit the concept.




-k

[Traul]

In the case of ghouls, you want to blast off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

Haven't you seen the movies? There is always one who manages to sneak in the ship (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

[Glyph]

There's no reason to expose myself; that's the street sam's job.

Those wired reflexes: 3 aren't the real reason they call him "Flash".

[Irion]

@Whipstitch

So, yeah, Body is great by virtue of the sheer number of nitty-gritty survival situations it affects and the ability to pile on the cheapest armor sources. But with that said, your character won't necessarily just disintegrate if they stop at 2 instead of 3.

Oh, they will. The glitch rule will see to that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Honestly a small even number on the ONE attribute for resistance is a bad idea.

You eat some bad food, critically glitch and you are in for a bucket of pain...
(Same reason you should not have reaction 2, because you will critically glitch in any firefight there is)

The point is: Increasing the dicepool from 2 to 3 just makes your chance to glitch go down the hill.
(2: 30%; 3: 7%)

[suoq]

I'm not sure why, at this point of the discussion, it's assumed characters can't spend edge before rolling, especially when we seem to be talking about low human attributes and the forte of humans being having a higher edge than other races.

[Aku]

I'm not sure why, at this point of the discussion, it's assumed characters can't spend edge before rolling, especially when we seem to be talking about low human attributes and the forte of humans being having a higher edge than other races.

I'm not sure why, at this point in the discussion, everyone is assuming why the OP was asking if humans were unDERpowered. According to the title, they want to know if they're UNpowered. Being biological creatures, they are not unpowered (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) thread over (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Whipstitch]

@Whipstitch

Oh, they will. The glitch rule will see to that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
(2: 30%; 3: 7%)

I'm familiar with glitches, but it still doesn't mean much to me given that there's not many situations in which you should be rolling a Body of 1 or 2 unaided. The other precautions you can take are still generally cheaper than having a strong constitution. Magic is a pain in the ass, but then, that goes for just about every mundo. This reminds me somewhat of emotitoys, actually, something I have long disallowed from my games because if they are uncommon the players have a big advantage and if dang near every club goer has them it just means people glitch less, which I don't think is very fun.

[Cain]

Body 1 is a bit of a straw man; I don't like to go below body 2. Body 3 *is* better, if only because it gives you an extra hit point.

But you don't have to worry about botches so much, since the roll is Body + Armor, not straight body. And since we're talking about humans, any roll where we're discussing low-body humans with an unaugmented roll is one where you want to spend Edge anyway. When I gear up a low-body human, I'm always careful to add as many armor extras as I can: chemical resistance, nonconductivity, and so on.

A powerbolt will ruin your day, true; but that's true for any mundane. Besides which, I only advocate body 2 for non-front-line combatants, such as deckers, riggers, and *mages*. Mages have Counterspelling to help them out, so they stand a better chance than the Body 5 ork.

[Yerameyahu]

Right, so we're talking a difference of maybe Body 2 to Body 4. I'm just saying that 2 is basically the bare minimum, and pretty much everyone wants 4 (maybe, maybe 3). It's not a problem to be forced into Body 4, and it's not really out of your way, either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's not like the Troll strength bonus.

[KarmaInferno]

Hell, I pumped my Pixie's Body up to 2 as soon as was feasible.

A 1 is scary. Especially because you basically can't wear more than armor clothing, without penalties.




-k

[Glyph]

Yeah, it's why I said earlier that orks, despite technically giving you 10 less net build points than trolls,are actually better - the stats they get bonuses to are right at the "sweet spot" and the penalties are less likely to really affect you.

I mean, there's no question that orks come out 20 points ahead, and that there is no mechanical reason not to take them, unless you are playing a human with high mental stats, high Edge, or both. Just like there is no mechanical reason not to take, say, human over elf unless you are playing a character with high Agility, high Charisma, or both.

The real question is, are they so crippled by the difference that they are only viable within this narrow niche? Personally, my answer would be no. You can make humans, and even elves, that are not geared towards their strengths, which are still perfectly functional builds. Are they optimized as much as they can possibly be? No. But you can still make a decent character. I'm the last one to favor the Stormwind fallacy, but between the extremes of deliberately gimping a character, and playing one who is not completely optimized, there is a lot of room. And even speaking as someone who likes to min-max the hell out of my characters, I will still play certain metatypes with roles that they are not the absolutely best suited for, on occasion.

[Rubic]

Yeah, it's why I said earlier that orks, despite technically giving you 10 less net build points than trolls,are actually better - the stats they get bonuses to are right at the "sweet spot" and the penalties are less likely to really affect you.

I mean, there's no question that orks come out 20 points ahead, and that there is no mechanical reason not to take them, unless you are playing a human with high mental stats, high Edge, or both. Just like there is no mechanical reason not to take, say, human over elf unless you are playing a character with high Agility, high Charisma, or both.

The real question is, are they so crippled by the difference that they are only viable within this narrow niche? Personally, my answer would be no. You can make humans, and even elves, that are not geared towards their strengths, which are still perfectly functional builds. Are they optimized as much as they can possibly be? No. But you can still make a decent character. I'm the last one to favor the Stormwind fallacy, but between the extremes of deliberately gimping a character, and playing one who is not completely optimized, there is a lot of room. And even speaking as someone who likes to min-max the hell out of my characters, I will still play certain metatypes with roles that they are not the absolutely best suited for, on occasion.

The only other reason, perhaps, is improperly left unstatted: ubiquity. Humans are still, supposedly, the metatype with the largest population and greatest breeding potential. Though the chances are low, you could have a dwarf, elf, human, ork, and troll all from the same human mother & father. She'd be a very tired woman, but nonetheless. The fact that humans are so common could easily justify adding a bonus similar to "Blandness,' or some other quality that lets them blend into the crowd better. Looking for an ork? 2 000 000 records to sift through. Looking for a human? 2 000 000 000, and they all look alike to me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) .

Mechanically, though, the difference is negligible. In Shadowrun, it's easier to break it than to fix or protect it, and that goes for character lives as well. The troll is a bit obvious, and makes for a bigger target. Any given security response may have enough firepower to kill even an Ork in one sitting, and seeing a troll could ramp that up to RRT levels. Then again, common sense isn't commonly held, it's commonly applicable. Sometimes you need a reminder about these things. That's one place that crunch trumps any amount of fluff; it's already on the sheet, it's there at a glance.

[Glyph]

I forget which edition, but I remember reading that human ubiquity could be a double-edged sword. Because humans are more common, people are more able to pick out specific humans, while a metatype is likelier to be described as "He was a big troll."