[X] My Assistant

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Ah, but the 24 dice person can fire More Bullets at More Stuff and with Bigger Guns.

Also, the principle applies to all tasks, not just bullets.

Good, you built a summoner that can summon F3 spirits without a problem, but F4 starts getting risky.

I can summon F6 all day every day. How are you useful?

The instance you refer to was for a character that had issues with a SINGLE type of Spirit that I was Extremely unlucky with. You shoud go back and read it. *Shakes Head* Simply Amazing.

[Draco18s]

The instance you refer to was for a character that had issues with a SINGLE type of Spirit that I was Extremely unlucky with. You shoud go back and read it. *Shakes Head* Simply Amazing.

I was in no way referring to that character at all. I was making a point.

PC1: I can summon F3 spirits without a problem, but F4 starts getting risky.

PC2: I can summon F6 all day every day. How are you useful?

PC1 is quite literally half as useful as PC2, simply because they're equally good at summoning spirits, but PC2 can summon them at twice the force for the same risk and benefit.

[Yerameyahu]

He said that it was a game in which skills were de-emphasized, not that RP=non-optimized. This is a weird, but possible, scenario.

Yes, and that's why usefulness is totally irrelevant.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Unintentional sub-optimality is not intentional choice.

True, However, I tend to design characters with a concept in mind. If I am not the Best in the World, My skills will reflect this. Novel Concept, I know, but there you go. Apparently, you do not follow that philosophy.

Generalists have this habit of taking two roles and trying to be "ok" at them when both of those roles are filled by specialists in the party already. I've never seen a generalist in SR that worked well. I.e. they end up being half of two different characters and never get to shine.

That is really a shame. I have played plenty of Generalists, and they have almost always worked out, and have had plenty of room to shine. There were a few duds over the last 20 years (and by that I mean like less than a handful), but not because of the design philosophy. They just did not develop as I intended them to. A big part of the design component/phase is how your table functions. If your table functions within the design parameters of the Book (and they DO exist, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge that or not), then you can be quite capable. If you design characters to be the absolute best at everything that they do, with little chance of failure (and lets face it, that is the only reason to go for the absolute highest maximum dice pool that you can cram in), well, that is a completely different game then, isn't it? I find perfection to be very boring... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Except one, and it was mine, and only because I'd been trying for a specific concept and lucked out that there was no dedicated hacker (and I still had to Mr. Lucky those roles when it came up). So my secondary role ended up being useful (my primary role was still specialized as far as I could with my limited BP budget). Even so, I ended up with several skills or abilities that never once entered play and thus ended up being more of a liability than an asset (whereas if I'd specialized more, I'd have performed better).

Sounds like you had issues with your concept. And I find it absolutely Amazing how you are the only one who can design competant Generalists, too. You do know that others ARE capable of such things, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I was in no way referring to that character at all. I was making a point.

PC1: I can summon F3 spirits without a problem, but F4 starts getting risky.

PC2: I can summon F6 all day every day. How are you useful?

PC1 is quite literally half as useful as PC2, simply because they're equally good at summoning spirits, but PC2 can summon them at twice the force for the same risk and benefit.

Contrived at best, and not how our table actually runs in play. You really should get out more.

[Warlordtheft]

Contrived at best, and not how our table actually runs in play. You really should get out more.

Hey, If he assumes a F6 spirit is twice as capable as a F4 then yeah. Problem, F6 can lead to 12S drain damage if the player gets unlucky, more so than th 8S at F4 or 6S at force.

Maybe the post should read:
400BP PC1:I can summon F3 spirits all day, con my way past the guards like I own the place, give first aid to my downed team mate when the drek hits the fan, and can cast a variety of spells.

400BP PC2: I can summon F6 spirits all day. Can cast a couple of other spells, and have a 1 body, 2 agility, and 3 reaction.

[Draco18s]

True, However, I tend to design characters with a concept in mind. If I am not the Best in the World, My skills will reflect this. Novel Concept, I know, but there you go. Apparently, you do not follow that philosophy.

It's that this is a philosophy which is not the point I'm making. The rules are such that a mechanically better character is always better. There's no reason to play anything less other than "because I want to" and tends (emphasis!) tends to work out poorly because the other players aren't doing the same thing.

That is really a shame. I have played plenty of Generalists, and they have almost always worked out, and have had plenty of room to shine. There were a few duds over the last 20 years (and by that I mean like less than a handful), but not because of the design philosophy. They just did not develop as I intended them to. A big part of the design component/phase is how your table functions. If your table functions within the design parameters of the Book (and they DO exist, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge that or not), then you can be quite capable. If you design characters to be the absolute best at everything that they do, with little chance of failure (and lets face it, that is the only reason to go for the absolute highest maximum dice pool that you can cram in), well, that is a completely different game then, isn't it? I find perfection to be very boring... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Where did I say that I didn't enjoy the character? I simply said that there were places that I could have cut back to have made him play better for that game that I should have been aware of (and often was, but ignored). Such as the perfect breaking and entering spell, minus the fact that the game would have no breaking an entering.

Sounds like you had issues with your concept. And I find it absolutely Amazing how you are the only one who can design competant Generalists, too. You do know that others ARE capable of such things, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I've seen competent generalists, the problem is that they're only competent in actual play when no one is capable of stealing their thunder. This is the primary reason, nay, the one and only reason no one plays a "half hacker" to help the full hacker out when he hacks. He's not an asset, he's a liability. Thus leading to the inevitable situation where The Hacker is the only one who knows how to use a computer and therefore never leaves his house (not to say that people don't play mobile hackers, just that it's easy and advantageous to not do so) causing a plethora of quadriplegic technomancers.


Basically it comes down to, "Yes, you can play a Paladin with 6 Wisdom and 6 Charisma, but why would you?" (referencing the fact that I've heard of such a character and it would have been so much easier/better/optimal for that player to have made a fighter).

It's not about the fact that suboptimal choices exist, but that the system favors (heavily) characters who don't take them. "The monk class wouldn't be a trap if it wasn't for every other class ever."

400BP PC2: I can summon F6 spirits all day. Can cast a couple of other spells, and have a 1 body, 2 agility, and 3 reaction.

you mean:

400BP PC2: I can summon F6 spirits all day, they can use Concealment and get me past the guards. I can cast Heal, which is just as good if not better than First Aid in combat. I don't need body, agility, or reaction because I have meat shields, now get out in front.

Stop comparing characters in a vacuum. They have team mates.

Hey, If he assumes a F6 spirit is twice as capable as a F4 then yeah.

Force 3, not Force 4. And we're assuming that the F6 mage can reduce the stun down to the same level that the F3 mage can. Which is possible with 400 BP, although uses a high level of cheese. The F3 mage spent his points "trying to be everybody at once" and ends up being "no one at all" whereas the F6 mage picked a spot that wasn't full and exploited the shit out of it.

It's called a "monopoly."

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Hey, If he assumes a F6 spirit is twice as capable as a F4 then yeah. Problem, F6 can lead to 12S drain damage if the player gets unlucky, more so than th 8S at F4 or 6S at force.

Maybe the post should read:
400BP PC1:I can summon F3 spirits all day, con my way past the guards like I own the place, give first aid to my downed team mate when the drek hits the fan, and can cast a variety of spells.

400BP PC2: I can summon F6 spirits all day. Can cast a couple of other spells, and have a 1 body, 2 agility, and 3 reaction.

Heh... Indeed... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

Heh... Indeed... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

See reply to that post above.

[Yerameyahu]

That's not a good rebuttal, though. That *character* is not identically capable, even if he did it all himself using spirits.

[Draco18s]

That's not a good rebuttal, though. That *character* is not identically capable, even if he did it all himself using spirits.

"Why do I need skill X at 2? Steve already has it at 4, and his attribute is higher too. I suppose I could take skill Y but Joe has it also and his attribute is higher. In order to do one/the other/both I'd have to make serious sacrifices at being Me."

[Yerameyahu]

That's a non-RP metagame argument. It assumes numerical optimization is that goal, and that the team of runners were designed together. That's the whole point.

[Draco18s]

That's a non-RP metagame argument. It assumes numerical optimization is that goal, and that the team of runners were designed together. That's the whole point.

So your (generic) group designs each of your characters in a vacuum, unknowing what everyone else is building? And that sometimes three people will show up with overlapping skills and be superfluous?

Wasn't that my other point, that a generalist will be overshadowed by a specialist in the same field? That is, that the generalist will defer to the specialist because they're more apt to succeed at the job, and thus might as well not have the skill at all? To the point where if all of a generalists skills are already covered then the entire character might as well not exist?

To take this example to the in-character point of view:

Why did the generalist-who-is-useless join the group anyway? Why did the group let him in, if anything he could do was already being done better?
"Your skills are great, 'n all, but we kind of already have it covered."

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It's that this is a philosophy which is not the point I'm making. The rules are such that a mechanically better character is always better. There's no reason to play anything less other than "because I want to" and tends (emphasis!) tends to work out poorly because the other players aren't doing the same thing.

Not all tables work this way. Ours doesn't. There is every reason not to play the World's best "Whatever". Primarily, when you cannot rationalize, or do not want to, being so.

Where did I say that I didn't enjoy the character? I simply said that there were places that I could have cut back to have made him play better for that game that I should have been aware of (and often was, but ignored). Such as the perfect breaking and entering spell, minus the fact that the game would have no breaking an entering.

That is a communications issue, not a design philosophy or rules issue.

I've seen competent generalists, the problem is that they're only competent in actual play when no one is capable of stealing their thunder. This is the primary reason, nay, the one and only reason no one plays a "half hacker" to help the full hacker out when he hacks. He's not an asset, he's a liability. Thus leading to the inevitable situation where The Hacker is the only one who knows how to use a computer and therefore never leaves his house (not to say that people don't play mobile hackers, just that it's easy and advantageous to not do so) causing a plethora of quadriplegic technomancers.

Again, this is a Communications Issue. I often play a "Half Hacker" as you put it, and I am always useful to the primary hacker. Again, just because it is not your main focus does not mean you cannot be decent at it. And we have YET to have a Hacker/Technomancer who hacks from Home Primarily. It may occur from time to time. But our team tends to run together on the runs. No leaving someone behind. You never know when something may come up to interfere with whatever is missing, be it a hacker, rigger, or whatever. It is LESS advantageous to play an immobile hacker/rigger than a mobile one. At least in my experience. Though it can be done.

Basically it comes down to, "Yes, you can play a Paladin with 6 Wisdom and 6 Charisma, but why would you?" (referencing the fact that I've heard of such a character and it would have been so much easier/better/optimal for that player to have made a fighter).

It's not about the fact that suboptimal choices exist, but that the system favors (heavily) characters who don't take them. "The monk class wouldn't be a trap if it wasn't for every other class ever."

Bad analogy. I do not refer to DnD. Shadowrun is a wholy different game with many more options. Maybe at your table, your GM favors (heavily) the characters that are hyper-optimized. It is not a universal condition.

you mean:

400BP PC2: I can summon F6 spirits all day, they can use Concealment and get me past the guards. I can cast Heal, which is just as good if not better than First Aid in combat. I don't need body, agility, or reaction because I have meat shields, now get out in front.

Stop comparing characters in a vacuum. They have team mates.

That is like the pot calling the Kettle Black. Criticise yourself before you criticize others.
Besides, You DO need Stats to be somewhat surviveable. A character without decent stats dies quickly and horribly, regardless of how many meat shields exist. All it takes is a luck shot.

Force 3, not Force 4. And we're assuming that the F6 mage can reduce the stun down to the same level that the F3 mage can. Which is possible with 400 BP, although uses a high level of cheese. The F3 mage spent his points "trying to be everybody at once" and ends up being "no one at all" whereas the F6 mage picked a spot that wasn't full and exploited the [i]shit out of it[/i].

Again you make blanket statements of "Fact" with no evidence to back them. That may be how it is at your table, but I can assure you that this is not how it is at our table.

It's called a "monopoly."

There are Anti-Trust laws to combat that Draco18s.

[Draco18s]

There are Anti-Trust laws to combat that Draco18s.

In real life, yes.

Not for designing characters.

That.

Is.

My.

Point.

That may be how it is at your table, but I can assure you that this is not how it is at our table.

I'd like to play at your table sometime, honestly. Because my table has yet to move beyond "Skill 2 is better than two skill 1s." I keep trying to have concept and background and well rounded, but it never works.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

So your (generic) group designs each of your characters in a vacuum, unknowing what everyone else is building? And that sometimes three people will show up with overlapping skills and be superfluous?

Wasn't that my other point, that a generalist will be overshadowed by a specialist in the same field? That is, that the generalist will defer to the specialist because they're more apt to succeed at the job, and thus might as well not have the skill at all? To the point where if all of a generalists skills are already covered then the entire character might as well not exist?

Yes, we often build characters apart form each other. A team is not a hyper-optimized unit, especially in the shadows. They are a collection of characters who have been drawn to gether from the shadows, who likely have never met each other prior to their first run together. So how, exactly, are they able to cover each other's flaws so precisely? What you are talking about is a Meta-Game thing. I choose not to play that particular game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I see your above opinion as extremely short-sighted and self-limiting.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

In real life, yes.

Not for designing characters.

That.

Is.

My.

Point.



I'd like to play at your table sometime, honestly. Because my table has yet to move beyond "Skill 2 is better than two skill 1s." I keep trying to have concept and background and well rounded, but it never works.

Indeed...

I am sorry to hear that. I would welcome you at our table. Always looking for more players. Everyone has to be on the same page for the game to work well. We still have a few concerns from time to time. But not too many, and not all that often.

[Yerameyahu]

Draco18s, the question is 'why would a character not be maxed out?' … That's why: because character concept is not a maxed out character. To assemble a team of perfectly-matched min max monkeys (master blaster!) is *bad*. There is nothing wrong with people having overlaps. (It's the extremes that are the problem: a team of specialists with minor overlap is fine, and typical.)

[Draco18s]

I am sorry to hear that. I would welcome you at our table. Always looking for more players. Everyone has to be on the same page for the game to work well. We still have a few concerns from time to time. But not too many, and not all that often.

Shame there's no way for me to show up.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Shame there's no way for me to show up.

Indeed... Maybe sometime in the future.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Falconer]

Answering the OP.

All drones are considered vehicles, not all vehicles are drones. (a drone at a minimum must have a pilot program and be able to act autonomously or given commands... not necessarily be jumped into by a rigger).

No vehicles aren't considered to have hardened armor. It's a side effect of the fact that vehicles can't take stun damage. In SR4 the wording was that 'vehicles are immune to stun damage' so the attack does nothing... (except mar the paint job (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) . In SR4a... they just said attack fails (to damage it, my own completion).


Spirits armor is a side effect of the ItNW... which itself is a side effect of either its "Materialization' or 'Possession/Inhabitation' powers.


It's possible to possess vehicles but the rules for such are different than possessing a person or corpse. Also the spirit give the new combined entity a stun track... so the while the vehicle may be immune to stun, the spirit animating it isn't. Nowhere in the rules does it state that spirits gain the immunities of the form they possess.

Fair warning: the rules there suggest adding the spirits force directly to the vehicles armor rating. IE: an armor 8 sedan like a VW beetle possessed by the force 5 spirit Herbie... should probably have an armor rating of 13 (8+5), not 23 (8+5+10ItNW). You can end up with some nigh indestructible things if you're not careful... an armor 20 van posssed by a force 6 spirit at 26+12==38 armor puts a tank to utter shame (and is nigh indestructible), and even an adept with a weapon foci is very unlikely to broach the vehicles base armor of 20+6 even bypassing the ItNW. So use your common sense in what you try to do and what you allow as a GM.

Also, any vehicle or character possessed should be very obvious to others Perception check threshhold (6-force)... so anything force5 or over only requires 1 success on a perception check to know it's possessed and also to have a good idea what is possessing it. (it also suggests applying a shamanic mask whenever the spirit is using a spirit power for an additional +2 dice on the check).

[KarmaInferno]

I'll use Missions again as an example where you have a LOT of players not turning their dials to maximum despite the rules and campaign allowing quite a lot of cheese.

I have found that in Missions you have a lot of players rolling 10-16 dice, when it's entirely possible to make a character using the same BP that does the same job with 18-24 dice.

Some are that way because they're not optimizers, and really only look at the rules when they have to. Otherwise they're playing to have a good time, whether they're more into roleplay, or simply just want a "casual" game, they simply don't care about being min-maxed.

Some folks just aren't that good at min-maxing.

Some are indeed newbies who don't know the rules well.

Some are doing so because everyone else is. I'm in that group. My characters are mostly CAPABLE of the uber-dice pool, but I watch the rest of the table to see what kinda of power levels everyone else is operating at, and try to match them. Maybe I won't use every bonus that's coming to me, or perhaps use pools I'm not so min-maxed in. I consciously do this so as not to dominate the table because that's no fun for anybody.

Also, sometimes as a challenge I make gimped characters, or have a character not operate at his fullest, especially if it's a game where I know the rules very well.




-k

[Yerameyahu]

Yup.

While it's true that optimization and roleplay are not directly related, it is true that they have areas that *don't* overlap. It is not possible to be game-optimal if your character isn't, and that's fine. It can be a great character, because they're not all world class (sometimes beyond!) experts in their fields. Not everyone is an escaped lab experiment and/or ex-elite-soldier—these are both possible *roles*, but so are burnout mages, born-again gangers, etc.

[Cain]

First of all, being optimized doesn't mean you're roleplay inept. Some of my most fun roleplay experiences were with maxed-out Shadowrun characters. Roleplay is up to the player, not the sheet.

Second, it's entirely too easy to create an optimized character in SR4.5 who *has no weaknesses* worth mentioning. I have a mage I like to play with Strength 1, it doesn't impede the character at all-- in fact, it's often humorous, when she tries to lift something and fails miserably. That's technically a weakness and cheese, except it fits the character all too well, and actually adds fun at the table. She's got no other significant weaknesses for a mage; she's not as tough as the troll, or savvy with computers as the decker, but she shouldn't have to be. In the areas where she needs to be functional, she is, and tends to only come out one or two dice behind the pure generalist.

Shadowrunning is about teams of specialists, working together. If you don't have someone good in all the roles, your team is going to have a rougher time of it.

[Yerameyahu]

Everyone knows that optimized doesn't mean bad roleplay or unfun. However, there are many good roleplay concepts that inherently can't be optimal.

As I already said, there's a difference between a team of specialists and a perfectly matched set of totally unrealistic, symbiotic characters.