Question re: Run and Gun, FFBA Tables incomplete? Options

[Sendaz]

Limits for all melee weapons really should be based somehow on skill, rather than an arbitrary "accuracy" stat.

This ^

It struck me as strange that you start with a limit set by your stat, but if you pick up a weapon it overwrote that, when really it should start with your stat limit and the accuracy would add or possibly even reduce this if really unwieldy.

[Critias]

This ^

It struck me as strange that you start with a limit set by your stat, but if you pick up a weapon it overwrote that, when really it should start with your stat limit and the accuracy would add or possibly even reduce this if really unwieldy.

FWIW, some of us felt (or rather, feel) the same way. Initially Accuracy was a modifier to your existing Limit, instead of a replacement. It was in part due to playtester feedback that it was changed -- folks felt it was too clunky that way, apparently. I much preferred it as a modifier, and didn't think the single step of additional basic subtraction/addition was all that bad (no moreso than AP or a host of other things on a weapon statline), but...oh well. That's not what made the cut.

[Nath]

Initially Accuracy was a modifier to your existing Limit, instead of a replacement.

Only for a given value of "initially."

[Critias]

It also makes the authors as a collective shutter down from ciriticism - disregard and ignore it. This makes the audience ever more angry, the criticism ever more vitriolic, and the writers shutter down even more.

Just FYI, but speaking only for myself here, it's not so much that I've shut down from criticism, as that I have better things to do with my day than defend other peoples' decisions (for better or worse), especially when many of the rules issues people have with SR5 are rules issues I also had with SR5 while working on developing it. It is utterly exhausting to be lambasted for things that aren't your fault, but even moreso when they're things you also personally argued against, pointed out were in error, etc, etc. And, to make sure it's all extra tiresome, there are things I'm not allowed to say due to NDAs being involved (along with basic professionalism), which means I can't always agree, or disagree, with comments the way I'd like to. After a while, visiting a forum you've been a member at for years turns into, instead, being a pop-up target in a shooting gallery, and fuck that noise.

So, yeah. After a while you get tired of being called a scab, an idiot, or worse, while soaking up insulting pay to do work that's all just supposed to be fun in the first place. And then, of course, when we're not still regulars at the forum, hanging out like we used to for years and years prior to being turned into lightning rods, we get accused of hiding out somewhere else, or being a yes man, or ignoring criticism.

[Medicineman]

@Critias
for whatever its worth:
I allways liked and appreciate your Work and dedication (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
I've never seen you as a scapegoat or Yea-sayer

HougH!
Medicineman

[Sendaz]

FWIW, some of us felt (or rather, feel) the same way. Initially Accuracy was a modifier to your existing Limit, instead of a replacement. It was in part due to playtester feedback that it was changed -- folks felt it was too clunky that way, apparently. I much preferred it as a modifier, and didn't think the single step of additional basic subtraction/addition was all that bad (no moreso than AP or a host of other things on a weapon statline), but...oh well. That's not what made the cut.

Thanks for the response, good to know the idea had/has potential and maybe I will sit down and tinker with it as an alternate method, henceforth being referred to as RG11 on my optional rule/idea list.

I think the clunky part might be trying to establish a baseline for determining revised acc bonuses, especially for new or unusual weapons. Should make for some fun discussions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Critias]

Thanks for the response, good to know the idea had/has potential and maybe I will sit down and tinker with it as an alternate method, henceforth being referred to as RG11 on my optional rule/idea list.

I think the clunky part might be trying to establish a baseline for determining revised acc bonuses, especially for new or unusual weapons. Should make for some fun discussions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'd just look at the most common Accuracy, and set that as the 0 or - or whatever you want to call it, the baseline. Then just apply math modifiers from there, apply smartlinks and whatever as normal, and...voila. Call it a day.

[X-Kalibur]

I'd just look at the most common Accuracy, and set that as the 0 or - or whatever you want to call it, the baseline. Then just apply math modifiers from there, apply smartlinks and whatever as normal, and...voila. Call it a day.

So limit = skill +/- acc mod?

[Jack VII]

So limit = skill +/- acc mod?

I think it was Physical Limit +/- Accuracy Mod, based on what Critias said. It's still a little clunky with Agility not factoring into the Physical limit, but I would assume there is a balance reason for that.

[Method]

I also thought that Accuracy replacing the Limit was weird considering one of the stated goals of SR5 was to emphasize the character and not the gear. In some ways it's remenicent of the problems that cropped up in SR4 when a piece of gear replaced a skill (I'm looking at you medkit). Namely, you don't need to be a sniper, for example, you just need to buy a sniper rifle. Granted the limit is not the same as the skill but it just rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, I said as much in my playtest feedback, but we all know how that story ends...

[X-Kalibur]

I think it was Physical Limit +/- Accuracy Mod, based on what Critias said. It's still a little clunky with Agility not factoring into the Physical limit, but I would assume there is a balance reason for that.

But that causes weird things like Trolls and Orks naturally being more accurate with melee weapons.

[Sendaz]

They will have a higher Limit, but they still need the skill to use that melee weapon.

Which also raises the question, should physical limit maybe substitute Agility for Body in the limit calculation?

It would make sense that agility plays a factor and would mitigate the double whammy of high str & body you are worried about for orcs and trolls.

Or if you do not like including agility, then maybe rejuggle the formula and make reaction the x2 with body & str as the add on. Maybe even call it a Melee Limit if you want it just for combat purposes.

[Cochise]

Which also raises the question, should physical limit maybe substitute Agility for Body in the limit calculation?

Taking agility from "super stat" to "uber stat" certainly doesn't look too appealing to me.

It would make sense that agility plays a factor and would mitigate the double whammy of high str & body you are worried about for orcs and trolls.

I really wonder how people can worry about double whammy on strength and & body when the vast majority of combat related skills are in fact agility based. Factoring agility into that limit calculation would further increase agility's value - particularly for elves - and relegate str and body further into the realms of being dump stats. I'm not too sure that metahuman racism against orcs and trolls should be part of the mechanical side of the combat system.

Or if you do not like including agility, then maybe rejuggle the formula and make reaction the x2 with body & str as the add on. Maybe even call it a Melee Limit if you want it just for combat purposes.

~hmm~ And I thought that one of the major problems of the first three editions was the exuberance of different rule sets for different sub-systems of the game and the additional exceptions within these sub-systems. SR4 (and SR5 as its successor) aimed at streamling the mechanics at least with some success ... but now you're suggesting the introduction of similar rule bloat as in those earlier editions?

[hermit]

I really wonder how people can worry about double whammy on strength and & body when the vast majority of combat related skills are in fact agility based. Factoring agility into that limit calculation would further increase agility's value - particularly for elves - and relegate str and body further into the realms of being dump stats. I'm not too sure that metahuman racism against orcs and trolls should be part of the mechanical side of the combat system.

The problem is that currently, given how physical limit is calculated, trolls are the uberninja - the ideal b&e specialist is a 300 kg, 3,5 meters stack of meat. I hope you see how this doesn't make much sense.

Maybe splitting the Limit - into a resistance and an agility limit - would help. I don't know though; such nonsense seems inevitable given the way limits work. They'll always generate one wtf or another.

~hmm~ And I thought that one of the major problems of the first three editions was the exuberance of different rule sets for different sub-systems of the game and the additional exceptions within these sub-systems. SR4 (and SR5 as its successor) aimed at streamling the mechanics at least with some success ... but now you're suggesting the introduction of similar rule bloat as in those earlier editions?

That is, after all, the official design philosophy of SR5 - I mean, just look at all the bloat added only in the core rules.

[Cochise]

The problem is that currently, given how physical limit is calculated, trolls are the uberninja - the ideal b&e specialist is a 300 kg, 3,5 meters stack of meat. I hope you see how this doesn't make much sense.

Wouldn't that suggest that the real problem lies with the attribute/skill linkage and not so much with how the physical limit is calculated? Because I do seem to recall that limits aren't supposed to come into play that often to begin with.

Maybe splitting the Limit - into a resistance and an agility limit - would help. I don't know though; such nonsense seems inevitable given the way limits work. They'll always generate one wtf or another.

So the answer again seems to be: more differently calculated limits. Somehow that reminds me of the "dreaded" dice pools from earlier editions ... spell pool, combat pool, control pool, task pool (I), task pool(II), astral combat pool, astral pool, whatever pool ...

That is, after all, the official design philosophy of SR5 - I mean, just look at all the bloat added only in the core rules.

Is such bloat really the official design philosophy or rather the result of not going through with the official design philosophy?

But whatever the answer to that is, I'm still glad that a certain freelancer so readily helped me with deciding on where not to spend my money (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

[Kincaid]

My first inclination is to have a base limit and then scale up from there based on skill, probably along the same lines as how recoil comp scales with strength since I like symmetry in design.

[Method]

Going back to Critias' idea of Acc acting as a modifier for Limits:

One idea my group played around we during play testing was using multiple limits (the big three plus other calculated limits, or sometimes using the linked Attribute as the limit) and have all gear rating act as limit modifiers (+/- DP modifer depending on the gear).

The limit modifer for melee weapons was reach (and trolls got thier inate bonus).

This requires some rescaling of the gear ratings (we suggested gear ratings should be 1-12 like Skills) and we envisioned would require a dramatic restructuring of costs and availability (with high rating equipment becoming much more expensive, maybe even a return of logarithmic costs like in SR3 deck building rules). High rating equipment would be "military" or "prototype", uber expensive and worth every penny if used by highly skilled characters.

However, this also created somewhat of a niche for cheeper, low level equipment. With rules for ownership and RFID tags we also envisioned that shadowrunning would creat a market for cheep disposable equipment that could be left behind or destroyed after being used in criminal activity.

Any thoughts?

[DeathStrobe]

The problem is that currently, given how physical limit is calculated, trolls are the uberninja - the ideal b&e specialist is a 300 kg, 3,5 meters stack of meat. I hope you see how this doesn't make much sense.

Alright, lets munchkin this to find out.

Troll Chargen
Priority A: Attribute, B: Metatype, C: Resources, D: Skill, E: Magic

B: 9, A: 6(8), R: 5(6), S: 9(11), mental stats are whatever, Edge: 1
7 attribute points left

physical limit: 13

Quality: exceptional attribute agility - 14 karma
11 karma left

Muscle Replacement 2 - 50,000¥
Wired Reflex 1 - 39,000¥
remaining 51,000¥

Skill Sneaking: 6
16 skills left

Total sneaking DP 14, odds of hitting limit...pretty low

Elf Chargen
Pritory A: Attribute, B: Resources, C: Metatype, D: Skill, E: Magic

B: 5, A: 8(10), R: 5(7), S:5(7), Mental whatever, Edge: 5
6 attribute points left

physical limit: 9

Quality: exceptional attribute agility - 14 karma
11 karma left

Muscle Replacement 2 - 50,000¥
Wire Reflex 2 - 140,000¥
remaining 76,000¥

Skill Sneaking: 6
16 skills left

Total sneaking DP 16.

Conclusion

I wish I knew the formula to calculate how often a DP of 16 will hit the limit of 9, and the DP of 14 to hit the limit of 13.

There is a difference of 2 DP between the elf and troll, and a difference of 4 limit. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the 2 dice on tests over the 4 limit that I won't be hitting too often. Especially since the elf get so much more edge and can totally ignore limits more often than the troll. And to top that off the elf still has more nuyen to spend and will be going faster than the troll, both in IP and just generally moving around since the elf's agi is so damn high. It really doesn't look like Trolls are the uber ninja of SR5.

This post has been edited by DeathStrobe: Apr 20 2014, 09:25 AM

[Jaid]

i'm just curious, what exactly is giving the troll an augmented 1 reaction from his base of 5?

[tasti man LH]

i'm just curious, what exactly is giving the troll an augmented 1 reaction from his base of 5?

Isn't it from Wired Reflexes 1?

[thorya]

I wish I knew the formula to calculate how often a DP of 16 will hit the limit of 9, and the DP of 14 to hit the limit of 13.

Try anydice. http://anydice.com/

The code you'll want is:

output [count {5,6} in Xd6]

Where X is the size of the dice pool. Then click on at least for the results and look for the results that are one higher that the limit (so 10 in the first case and 14 in the second). The percentage is how often you will be above the limit.

For the two cases you've presented it is:
DP 16 limit 9, you will be above the limit 1.59% of the time.

DP 14 limit 13, you will be above the limit <0.01% of the time.

[thorya]

So I just went ahead and wrote the stuff you need to automatically calculate the effects of limits. Hopefully this will make all of the statistics thrown around on dumpshock more accurate and make people's evaluations of limits and their impacts more realistic (I can hope, but I doubt it actually will).

function: countlim VALUES:s in SEQUENCE:s {
COUNT: 0
LIMIT: 9
loop P over {1..#VALUES} {
COUNT: COUNT + (P@VALUES = SEQUENCE)
if COUNT > LIMIT {COUNT: COUNT - (P@VALUES = SEQUENCE)}
}
result: COUNT
}
output [countlim {5,6} in 16d6]

Note, that currently you will need to adjust the limit above and the dicepool in the output line.

Average successes with DP 16, limit 9: 5.25
Average successes with DP 14, limit 13: 4.67

Winner, elf even with the lower limit. EDIT: And the limit reduces the elf's hits by 0.08 hits on average.

[Jaid]

Isn't it from Wired Reflexes 1?

he's got reaction 5(1). that's not 5 (+1), unless you think that, say, strength 9(11) means base 9, plus 11 more (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[DeathStrobe]

he's got reaction 5(1). that's not 5 (+1), unless you think that, say, strength 9(11) means base 9, plus 11 more (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

That'd be a typo. Thanks for pointing that out.

[DeathStrobe]

So I just went ahead and wrote the stuff you need to automatically calculate the effects of limits. Hopefully this will make all of the statistics thrown around on dumpshock more accurate and make people's evaluations of limits and their impacts more realistic (I can hope, but I doubt it actually will).

function: countlim VALUES:s in SEQUENCE:s {
COUNT: 0
LIMIT: 9
loop P over {1..#VALUES} {
COUNT: COUNT + (P@VALUES = SEQUENCE)
if COUNT > LIMIT {COUNT: COUNT - (P@VALUES = SEQUENCE)}
}
result: COUNT
}
output [countlim {5,6} in 16d6]

Note, that currently you will need to adjust the limit above and the dicepool in the output line.

Average successes with DP 16, limit 9: 5.25
Average successes with DP 14, limit 13: 4.67

Winner, elf even with the lower limit. EDIT: And the limit reduces the elf's hits by 0.08 hits on average.

Very helpful. Thank you. Somehow, I can't help but think that limits will still be the scapegoat for people to hate on SR5. That and wireless boni.