Shadowrun 5 Errata, Let's stay focused here Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Bet TJ can do it with 26. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Seeing as how I despise the Limit Mechanic, and will never run a SR5 Game. *shrug*
I can see it happening, though, from time to time (dice do some crazy things, and I tend to hit closer to 45% than 33%) with 26 dice (though I would place bets on the average of 8-9 Hits). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Chrome Head]

It is a bit of an inconsistency if the greatest explosives expert in the world is, per the rules, incapable of replicating a bog-standard and inexpensive mass produced product without resorting to using incredibly high-rating and thus massively expensive base materials,

I'm not convinced of that myself. But more importantly: it's a game, there will be tons of inconsistencies related to that fact.

Game rules for gaming action, players and their characters. The reason we play this game is not because we wonder oh how do they put caramel in the caramilk, i.e. explosives in grenades. It's not because every tiny detail is consistent with tests and whatever. If it's not an important part of the game, or something that should require tests, then it's left untouched, as it should. Otherwise you'll have to make up tests for everything and nothing, not only designing grenade machines, but also correcting exam copies, painting the outside of your house, hammering a nail in dry wood, or a test for being elected president, for falling in love...

Come on, we're gamers, we're not trying to reproduce every aspect realistically and with consistent tests. It's not a major flaw of the game that it's mysterious how to build grenades from explosives. I recall we're imagining ourselves in a world with magic and dragons after all. If you want to talk about errata, focus on useful things please.

but that's just me being picky.

Agreed.

[RHat]

It is a bit of an inconsistency if the greatest explosives expert in the world is, per the rules, incapable of replicating a bog-standard and inexpensive mass produced product without resorting to using incredibly high-rating and thus massively expensive base materials, but that's just me being picky.

Which is a perfectly fair argument to have in a different thread.

[Jaid]

page 206: "In both cases, healing is handled as an Extended
Test."

healing is not handled much like an extended test at all. the only similarity is that there are multiple rolls; however, you (presumably) do not lose dice on subsequent rolls, and hits are immediately applied to your healing rather than being applied towards the eventual completion of some task.

likewise, on page 207, when discussing the specific process for healing stun damage, we have: "Make a Body + Willpower (1 hour) Extended Test." and for physical damage: "Make a Body x 2 (1 day) Extended Test." (edit: to clarify, the problem with these two statements is the part about them being an extended test).

in contrast, the rules for extended tests indicate that

"Extended tests cannot last forever; at some point,
characters reach the limit of their abilities, and further
efforts will do them no good. To simulate this, with each
successive roll on an Extended test, players should remove
one die from their dice pool. Eventually they’ll
have no dice left, and the test will be over."

and

"roll, Extended tests allow you to make repeated rolls and
then accumulate the hits you made in each roll until you
either reach the threshold, you run out of time because
there’s something else you need to do or because people
start shooting at you, or you run out of rolls."

and further has discussion on the exact effects of glitches and critical glitches which do not match up at all with the rules for healing.

so yeah... healing is not an extended test. it is a series of simple/success tests.

[j2klbs]

p. 271 - The example allows Spike an automatic check to locate all silently running icons. Each silently running icon makes it's Logic + Sleaze checks and if gets fewer hits than the Matrix Perception test is spotted/located.

p. 236 - The above example directly contradicts the rules on p. 236 where they state "...if there are multiple silent running icons in the vicinity, you have to pick randomly which one you're going to look at through the Opposed Test".

I much, much prefer the rules in the example since even one person could have a hundred silently running icons making the hacker worthless if he needs a separate test mechanic to spot each one.

[j2klbs]

Vehicle-related rules shortcomings -->

p. 205 - "Evasive Driving" - references being like the Full Defense action but also mentions it is a "Free Action". This should be referred to as an "Interrupt Action"

p. 204 - "Catch-up/Break Away" - there is reference to a "maneuver Threshold", but it is very unclear how to derive that value. There is a table on p. 199 for Vehicle Test thresholds, but it is not intuitive whether the catch-up/break away would be an easy, average, hard or extreme threshold.

[rumanchu]

p. 271 - The example allows Spike an automatic check to locate all silently running icons. Each silently running icon makes it's Logic + Sleaze checks and if gets fewer hits than the Matrix Perception test is spotted/located.

p. 236 - The above example directly contradicts the rules on p. 236 where they state "...if there are multiple silent running icons in the vicinity, you have to pick randomly which one you're going to look at through the Opposed Test".

I much, much prefer the rules in the example since even one person could have a hundred silently running icons making the hacker worthless if he needs a separate test mechanic to spot each one.

That example actually shows the "if you know at least one feature of an icon running silent" part of the Matrix Perception rules (p.235). "Spike performs a Matrix Perception actions, knowing that Driver’s RCC and his rotodrone are running silent within 100 meters."

[j2klbs]

That example actually shows the "if you know at least one feature of an icon running silent" part of the Matrix Perception rules (p.235). "Spike performs a Matrix Perception actions, knowing that Driver’s RCC and his rotodrone are running silent within 100 meters."

Thanks rumanchu for that. However, you may be missing my point. Even if the decker does know something about the silently running icons (which he could also get from a hit on the Matrix Perception test), on p. 236 the rules still state he must pick one silent icon at random and perform an opposed test (implying that this is a separate Matrix Perception and thus a separate complex action spent for each silently running icon). However, the example does not do this. Instead, in the example all silently running icons (in this case two) rolled their tests and compared hits against the original Matrix Perception test. This is the deviation from the stated rules on p. 236 which I am trying to point out. The rules being followed in the example are much smoother and work. But if a separate tests is needed for every silently running icon, that is a broken rule. (For example, imagine a person who simply has 100 RFID chips and one important piece of gear all running silently. Good luck finding the important piece amongst all the RFID's if you have to pick one by one at random.)

Maybe I'm reading too much into the "pick one at random" wording. Perhaps the rules just mean to say, "go through every silent icon and make an opposed test". Maybe the rules do not intend this test to be a separate complex action and a separate Matrix Perception test. I would suggest that they not say "at random" then because why should it be necessarily random. But at least interpreting it this way would square up with the example.

[Stahlseele]

Hall of Thousand Mirrors.
This is one of 2 tricks that can make hackers impossible to attack as far as i remember.

[rumanchu]

Thanks rumanchu for that. However, you may be missing my point. Even if the decker does know something about the silently running icons (which he could also get from a hit on the Matrix Perception test), on p. 236 the rules still state he must pick one silent icon at random and perform an opposed test (implying that this is a separate Matrix Perception and thus a separate complex action spent for each silently running icon). However, the example does not do this. Instead, in the example all silently running icons (in this case two) rolled their tests and compared hits against the original Matrix Perception test. This is the deviation from the stated rules on p. 236 which I am trying to point out. The rules being followed in the example are much smoother and work. But if a separate tests is needed for every silently running icon, that is a broken rule. (For example, imagine a person who simply has 100 RFID chips and one important piece of gear all running silently. Good luck finding the important piece amongst all the RFID's if you have to pick one by one at random.)

Maybe I'm reading too much into the "pick one at random" wording. Perhaps the rules just mean to say, "go through every silent icon and make an opposed test". Maybe the rules do not intend this test to be a separate complex action and a separate Matrix Perception test. I would suggest that they not say "at random" then because why should it be necessarily random. But at least interpreting it this way would square up with the example.

I've always interpreted the "if you know at least one..." part of the rule as overriding the standard "randomly determine which one if there are multiple" part (partially because of the example in question). Of course, then the tricky bit is deciding what counts as a "feature" for the purposes of the test. My rule of thumb is that you know that a particular icon *should* be in a fairly specific area (like the Ingram Smartgun that guard RIGHT THERE is carrying) you can scan specifically for that one silent icon. (Stealth tags get stupidly useful, otherwise).