[X] My Assistant

[Chrome Head]

I agree with all of what tjn is saying. This is far from being the first time that the rules are annoyingly flawed in SR5, yet clear when looking at RAW objectively. There should be a thing called augmented skill rating, or alternatively improved ab and skill reflexes should be dice pool enhancements, but sadly this is not the way it's written.

Maybe they are the only evidence in the entire book of "augmented skills," maybe the writer wanted to make it clear what skill points were spent, or maybe they were made prior to the rules being finalized like explained in the current thread on this very forum: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=40239 Short answer? Never believe that the example characters are rules legal.

I'd also like to emphasize this point. I have gone through all the pre-made characters (and I post about this in the quoted thread), and most of them have mistakes in them. Some have very important mistakes. Not to mention that a skill which has its rating improved seperately from spending skill points in it should be identified so for clarity regardless of whether augmented skills exist.

[Glyph]

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of us come from previous editions, and measure the new rules against the way things were done in previous editions. Especially things like augmented skills, which were handed similarly even in the vastly different 3rd and 4th editions. When we see an omission like that, our first reaction is to conclude that the rules for augmented skills were not copypasted over in yet another editorial error.

I agree the RAW does lean towards an absolute cap of 12(13), whether that was intended or not (I'm voting not), because while specific rules can override general ones (for example, wired reflexes and reaction enhancers with wireless turned on can go over the augmented cap for Reaction), they don't explicitly contradict the general rule when talking about adept improved ability. SR4 was a lot more clear about modified skill ratings - yet another reason not to switch, I guess.

[Falconer]

tjn:
Actually in that flood of texts... you missed 3 major points.

One your 'out of context' is not out of context.

It specifically mentions to make final adjustments to the character sheet. Adjusting attributes, skills, and derived attributed with modified/augmented values. There would be no reason to do this if things did not somehow augment skills.

You completely ignore that the street sam has clearly augmented skills in his stat block.

Therefore. Augmented skills do exist in the SR5 core rulebook. They're just never spelled out directly. Only mentioned indirectly. But you cannot make the claim that they do not exist within the black and white print of the book in some spots. You can only argue that it's in error... and once you go down that road... it's a very slippery slope. If that's in error... then the skill section may also be in error.

Your entire basis of argument relies on stating that they don't exist. But there is text in the SR5 core book, and you cannot disprove it's existence. Only make claims of 'taken out of context'... when it's clearly well within context.

Just to use the exact same logic you try to use. The skills section which defines skills is deliberately taken 'out of context' by you to the exact same degree as I used the step 8 rules for final adjustments to the character. Those rules have no context with relation to other non-skill skill modifiers. Any citing of them in respect to them, is similarly taking them out of context. See how easy it is to spin that argument. It's not novel.


Chrome: I agree... the book is an utter mess! (too many people caring more about gloss/artwork/layout than the text!). But I disagree strongly with the weak and shoddy logic that some are employing here. And well it's the internet... a debate for it's own sake takes on it's own life and fun :). In this, case the exact rules interactions are undefined by RAW... to state that by strict RAW it's one way or the other is well wrong.

[RHat]

(too many people caring more about gloss/artwork/layout than the text!)

I just want to point out how ridiculous this particular assertion is. If you're going to posit a flaw in the process or priorities, at least make it plausible...

(For those who don't understand my point: layout, artwork, and text are done by completely different people. Caring about one doesn't detract from the other two, except perhpas indirectly where the influence would have to be relatively minor due to the specific structure of how CGL gets books put together).

In any case, getting back to an earlier point on the balance of the whole thing - Street Sams get easier and better access to attribute augmentations. If the environment were balanced, Adepts would get easier or at least better access to skill augmentations. If skill augmentations are not present, there's a serious balance issue between the two to contend with.

[Chrome Head]

Your entire basis of argument relies on stating that they don't exist. But there is text in the SR5 core book, and you cannot disprove it's existence. Only make claims of 'taken out of context'... when it's clearly well within context.

Ok I don't have the patience to pick apart your craziness, but I'll pitch in for this part right here.

No, just no. Your basis for argument relies on stating that they do exist. His argument that you're wrong is one thing, but his main argument is just that there's a clear rule that states that improved ability improves the rating, and that the rating has a maximum. It's straight-forward and clearly in the rules.

Your argument relies on something that is not clear. The Samurai having a parenthesis is a very moot point, since the mage in the same section has a quality for being a magician. Oh and a sim rig (ETA: sorry I meant control rig here, for which one of the rigger characters isn't charged in essence) doesn't cost essence. You can't assert rules based on those examples, that's pretty clear. It's not even a rules section to begin with. And like I said before, the parenthesis seems needed regardless, otherwise it's ambiguous. If you only see rating 5, do you then have to add the rating from the reflex recorder, or is it already included. To clear the ambiguity, you put the parenthesis. It can be explained away while remaining consistent. That's a lot of points against that very weak argument that tries to justify an invented rule that the book doesn't otherwise mention.

And your second argument relies on that little bit in step 8. Namely:
"At this point, characters are basically done, though there are several derived mechanics that must be calculated before they are ready to be played. Since many of these are adjusted by augmentations, it is best to wait until all decisions have been made on skills and attributes before making these calculations."

Semantically, there is absolutely no indication there that skills are augmented per se, only that decisions about skills ought to be considered before making the final calculations. Once again, a very very weak argument in your favor, since once again it can be explained away. Your decisions about skills will affect other decisions, and so you should wait until your sheet is complete before making final calculations.

I see extreme weakness in your argument, to the point where it's generous to consider it valid to begin with. And you go on trying to wrap all that bulldrek in rhetoric. At the end of the day, the argument that the rating has a limit, and that improved ability increases the rating, which doesn't change the fact that the rating is limited, is very strong and hard to go against, from a pure RAW point of view. Your strong opposition to this is truly unwarranted and not based in objective facts, by which I mean words used in the book.

[RHat]

Oh and a sim rig doesn't cost essence.

Other than the implanted version, which costs 0.2 Essence.

[Chrome Head]

Other than the implanted version, which costs 0.2 Essence.

My bad, I meant to say control rig, listed at 1 essence per rating.

[tjn]

One your 'out of context' is not out of context.

It specifically mentions to make final adjustments to the character sheet. Adjusting attributes, skills, and derived attributed with modified/augmented values. There would be no reason to do this if things did not somehow augment skills.

I... wow. The quote you used as "proof" of augmented skills, does not say anything about augmented skills, but rather how derived stats were to be changed based upon augments that can change attributes and skills. Augments can change skills but that does not automatically mean that the skill is now an "Augmented Skill" as a thing, a noun, or a stat, in which there are rules to be applied to it. The only thing that it means is that there are augments that can change the skill's rating without skill points or karma expenditure.

You completely ignore that the street sam has clearly augmented skills in his stat block.

See the other thread as to how much importance to put on the example characters and their adherence to the rules. Maybe the parentheses are used to provide clarification or maybe at some point there was such a thing as augmented skills, but there isn't anymore. Either way the rules are explicit. Don't like them, change them! I will!

Therefore. Augmented skills do exist in the SR5 core rulebook. They're just never spelled out directly. Only mentioned indirectly. But you cannot make the claim that they do not exist within the black and white print of the book in some spots. You can only argue that it's in error... and once you go down that road... it's a very slippery slope. If that's in error... then the skill section may also be in error.

No, they do not exist. There is no mention of "Augmented Skills," only modifiers to the skill's rating itself. The rule is simple. I make no claim that it is right or it is in error, or anything else. There are currently four ways to modify a skill (karma, skill points, Improved Ability, Reflex Recorder), each and every one of those ways specifically increases the rating of the skill. The rating of a skill is capped at 12/13 but doesn't care how you get to that rating.

Your entire basis of argument relies on stating that they don't exist. But there is text in the SR5 core book, and you cannot disprove it's existence.

Your argument relies upon there being a thing called "augmented skills." You are putting forth that assumption. The burden of proof lies upon you to show that it does exist.

My argument, on the other hand, does not care if there exists an "augmented skill" or not. Just that increasing the rating of a skill is capped at 6/7 in character creation and 12/13 post creation, and it doesn't matter how you increase it, but there are four ways in which to do so.

What I have done, is cast serious doubt on the existence of "augmented skills" as written in SR5. Your argument relies upon that assumption, but instead of addressing this doubt, you reply that it's "just never spelled out directly." You cannot cite a page to support your argument. I can. Yet you claim I am the one that builds my case entirely upon my own authority.

The skills section which defines skills is deliberately taken 'out of context' by you to the exact same degree as I used the step 8 rules for final adjustments to the character.

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. You need to support your position with facts, ideally from the text itself. This is what separates my logic from yours.

Those rules have no context with relation to other non-skill skill modifiers.

This is demonstrably wrong. Skill points directly increase the respective skill's skill rating. Improved Ability directly increases the respective skill's skill rating. Reflex Recorders directly increases the respective skill's skill rating. Karma expenditure directly increases the skill's rating.

Any citing of them in respect to them, is similarly taking them out of context. See how easy it is to spin that argument. It's not novel.

So, uh, since you are demonstrably wrong... your logic is flawed since the conclusion does not flow naturally from the precedent. Citing to all things that increase the skill's rating has an inherent context and relation to each other, and relates to the rule limiting every skill's maximum skill rating.

In this, case the exact rules interactions are undefined by RAW... to state that by strict RAW it's one way or the other is well wrong.

The rules interactions are explicit. There are multiple ways to raise a skill's skill rating, but that skill rating, no matter how it is improved, is capped at 6/7 in character creation or 12/13 after. The page numbers have been cited, this is what the book, as written, says, as such they are not undefined, and to state otherwise, without citing any actual rules from the book, while claiming I'm the one claiming an appeal to my own authority? Mind boggling.

I apologize to everyone else, and if Falconer, or anyone else, wishes to continue this debate, my inbox is open. I'm done, consider the mic dropped.

[Falconer]

Which I did show exists in the book tjn... Always putting up a wall of text to read doesn't change that. You're not addressing things point by point, simply repeating yourself ad nauseum.

You can disagree all you like. But you cannot change the fact that I did demonstrate that they exist in the book.

You can try to throw things out as 'irrelevant' or bugged. But the entire point there is that it exists AND it demonstrates intent. And once again that is a slippery slope... I can just as easily state your text is bugged/incomplete/whatever and disregard it.

You can't point to anything in the book to demonstrate intent as to your reading.

You similarly can't point to anything in the book to handle all the other questions which come up without secondary modifiers to skills.

[Chrome Head]

Ok Falconer, if you've demonstrated that augmented skills exist in the book and you hate walls of text. Please state clearly and succinctly how you support your claim using written rules.

We've shown clearly with 2-3 simple quotes how the RAW supports our claim. Focus on your claim, show it using simple quotes and simple explanations based on actual text.

It seems to me like you're the one using tons of words with little content. Little demonstration. Show me your point clearly, don't go around it, just be straightforward like you claim you can be.

[Jack VII]

While I think that this is an interesting conversation, I would point out that the freelancer who provided rules interpretations which made it into the first errata document has previously clarified that Improved Ability is apparently seperate from skill ranks rather than additive (thus allowing a Skill 13/Improved Ability 7 build). While Aaron describes his answers as not quite official and possibly incorrect in his signature, we do have official errata that incorporates many of his interpretations so far.

It may not be RAW, but may be RAI.

LINK