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

[tjn]

The main issue I have with your above example is that it shows that it's all on the GM, and it's the GM's fault that they don't have the imagination or wherewithal "to handle the situation" without resorting to some perceived underhanded character concept thuggery. I'm sorry, but the 30+ soak Troll doesn't just want to be able to take a seriously nasty hit and keep on fighting. They don't just want to be able to run up and punch stuff. They want to have a carte blanche reason to be stupid and lazy as a character builder and as a player.

Where are you coming from with all of this player vs GM antagonism?

Most often players start by sitting down with the book at the game table in order to make their character, and if they want to make the toughingest tough guy that ever toughed, because that's going to be his role in the group, they start looking for every +die to withstand taking damage that they can, which is a lot. At no point does the GM ever tell him "hey, you know, there's an issue with stacking soak modifiers in the base book" because he's either too busy with the complete newb who has no clue what Shadowrun is, or it doesn't occur to him that soak monsters are problems. All the player has is books in front of him, he hasn't read the book like us obsessives on Dumpshock, or even to the degree of his GM, he reads really only enough to play his character, and since it's a new system, he has no personal experience with the game to tell him there's an issue with soak stacking, and he sure as hell can't read anyone's mind to know that he's creating an edge case scenario that breaks the system. He might ask the GM if there's something ambiguous, but for most people, making a character isn't hard, it just takes time. However the player's expectations as to what is acceptable are formed directly by what RAW tells him is acceptable, and the book tells him it's perfectly fine to stack his soak pool into the 30's, says nothing on the subject. However the book says there's an attribute mod cap, and the book specifically points out a rule causing conflicts with initiative mods, but there's no rule ever telling the player he really shouldn't be stacking his soak pool into the 30's. And for that reason the player deserves your derision, insults, and insinuations?

If a player is a problem player, it won't be because of stacking his soak pool, it because he's a problem player and it doesn't matter what character he plays, it's going to be a problem. He's going to troll the net for these edge cases and if you've ever played with him before, you know this is what he's going to do. Even if you fix soak stacking (which is what I would do), he's going to come back with a pornomancer, if it's not a pornomancer, it's a Mr. Lucky. But when talking about an isolated case, I'm not going to simply assume the player is intentionally doing it to cause a problem.

I also approach the game as whatever the system allows, it's not the player's fault for exercising those options to him. Go watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er-E1vxEnic It applies to this, and notice his distinctions between spoilsports and cheaters, and the camps of purists, code is law, cheaters, and jerks. I fall heavily into the code is law camp, where if we have a problem with a game system that produces characters out of step with everyone else, we need to fix the system, and not yell at the others that they're doing it wrong.

[Kerenshara]

Sure thing, this will get long, so I apologize to everyone =p
Shadowrun Missions are a thing. Whether they should be a thing is another thing entirely; you obviously had some negative experiences, but I don't think they're going to go anywhere any time soon. So I'm just going to take it as a given when getting into the nuts and bolts of the system but because Missions is a thing, RAW becomes rather important. This is because, as you've alluded to, there is as many different ways of playing rpgs as there are players and every approach is as valid as everyone else's.

While you and I lean probably more towards the playing of a role aspect of rpgs, there are others that treat their characters similarly to game pieces, and the infinite possibilities for challenging scenario play is what gets their juices going. And they aren't wrong for it, but those two differing playstyles probably shouldn't game together without a lot of talk and compromise on every side to come to a consensus. This is another way of setting foundations and a shared basis for understanding so that everyone can come to play on the same page.

But the thing is, Missions is an official doohickey and because of that, if a player wants to play in Missions, it's important that Missions allow them in.

Ok, good place to jump in. I understand that Missions are an official "thing" and that Missions need to allow them in. If people want to break a module, they don't need to be Module Monsters™ to do it. Seen THAT in Living Greyhawk as well. If Missions are going to be a given doohickey, then understanding people are going to break them also has to be a given. Trying to make rues to stop that stifles home campaigns which are more free-form to begin with and winds up necessitating House Rules to remove the Mission-specific stuff. Did I actually get that explanation to make sense? Missions have to be RAW - no brainer. But making it so you almost HAVE to make House Rules to play a long-term game is nonsensical if you want to keep people who don't play the Missions. And since I'm going to snip your post a bit, I've had bad experiences in the paid canned modules too. The good ones are more unusual than the meh or bad ones but I think my problem with Missions is they kind of do expect cookie cutter characters and if you build the mechanics around that you've built in a bias you need House Rules to get around. I'll make a point to steer clear of Ghost Cartels on your advice.

ou can't legislate stupid, but a good dev can make a system robust enough to handle that stupidity, while at the same time encouraging a certain style of play by making "optimium" choices encourage that style of play. A good dev will make a player's system mastery work for the game, rather than breaking the game.

Ok, that sounds suspiciously like a class-based system by another name. Just sayin'. I've seen sneaky and worldly Paladins but they tend to be memorable for their uniqueness and how much weaker they are at their nominal "role".

Question: did you ever play the game as is? To see if it was actually a problem in play and not just something you felt was wrong in theory? Personally I'm not a fan of limits, but they did add an additional dimension to gear that I felt was needed, and creates an additional pressure on Edge use, and highlights the really good rolls as being important, because of that pressure on Edge. That said, in play things like the combat axe become nigh useless and any limit under 5 in a contested test.

In SR4/4A yes, briefly. The house rules came out of the first few sessions and it got predictive once you understood where things inevitably had gaps or rough patches. SR5, not yet, but mechanically it's the same bones as SR4/4A; rules is something else. It's why I say the Decking (thank gods they brought back the Cyberdeck) looks VERY promising but can't say for sure. Too many things needing to be ported forward didn't have enough info (been playing in the 6th World for 29 years and I'm not willing to "forget" something that's been a fixture for that long just because the stats aren't out for it yet in the new version which is why I've been waiting on R&G and why I put up the OP way back up top). Since the dice mechanics haven't changed, I know precisely what telescoping the skill levels will mean (I'm diagnosed severely OCD about numbers as my biggest obsession) mechanically in relation to the old version I HAVE played RAW and extensively with House Rules of various flavors. Bear in mind, the "house rules" about caps are only "house" in that we chose from the ones offered as optional in the core books. It was using all of them that made it very "house" in feel.

There's two small wrinkles I could see from your house rule, and they totally depend on the type of table you're at. The first is, that it's kinda computationally heavy. Not the worst that has shown up in an rpg by any means, but I had one player once that refused to do any math more than simple addition and subtraction. He just wanted to show up and have a good time, and as math was relatively hard for him (pretty bad dyslexia), and a player like that would balk. I got tired of making his sheets for him and doing all the calculations for whatever system we'd use, but when we tried out WoD, he really liked it... because of that lack of maths. But that's a table by table thing and you don't need to be inclusive of everyone; just everyone at your table.

Hmm, okay. There's computation and computation. This is actually the former. Most of the "computation" is done at CharGen and when spending Karma. The actual "maths" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) are no different than the RAW in play especially compared to SR5.

The other thing is a little more serious. Most of SR is based off of contested rolls which means even if you max out a combat skill, that limit is going to mostly be a 3 for a starting character, no matter what weapon they're using. I already dislike Combat Axes for having a limit of 4 and never hitting, 3's across the board would mean whiffville for everyone. Most characters are going to be able to get 3 hits on their dodge test, which has no limit, and so even the best shooter out of chargen is going to miss most of the time. That's just the most obvious thing, but it extends to other opposed tests like social tests, because if the character has at least a three in the skill, he will always win (unless he rolls rather badly) when faced with anyone with less of a skill than he has. Secondly, a lot of the electronics gear uses device ratings as their limits, which in general are higher than three, and might lead to unintended consequences such as using sensors instead of perception for everything, including what's right in front of the character.

Maybe you can fix this by applying the limit to net hits instead of after the roll is made, but if your goal is to keep things in the 1-6 range, the lower of anything and a skill/2, round up, limit puts every skill limit for a starting character in the 1-3 range. Or maybe you can reduce the amount of limit given by the attributes, and add a factor generated by the skills, or maybe use the higher of whatever attribute limit and the skill rank. But these are the kinds of unintended consequences that happen when monkeying around with the system in a way a GM shouldn't have to. Limits shouldn't need GMs to polish them because they are so core to the entire system, and effect everything =/

OK, here's where I know either you misread or I really blew the explanation. (From the length of the following response, you guess which... I don't usually go on if I think the other person's being dense) The formula means somebody with Skill 2 has a cap of 4 kept hits. The average U.S. Police Officer has Pistols 2 and they can't hit squat even against a non-dodging unthreatening target at 5-10 meters distance (Check the "officer involved shooting" stories and report details - 12 to 17 hits on somebody from three officer who emptied their 15-17 round magazines. And those are all "two single action" shots, mechanically). We tend to have an unrealistic idea as a fanbase of what "trained", "professional", "veteran" and "elite" look like. People think you can get Pistols 3 from a week-long course of "combat pistol marksmanship". Sorry, just ain't so. The SEALs who popped the hijackers of the Maersk Alabama at a couple hundred meters in a bobbing lifeboat are - in game terms - Legendary. The average SEAL isn't actually Firearms 6. More like Automatics 5 and Pistols 4 given their training and operational realities. Sniping really should be its own active skill as a means to reduce shooting penalties (each hit on the Sniping test reduces one point of negative modifiers from cover, movement or range but not concealment). Your average Taxi driver is a "professional" driver but they aren't "professional" the way the RAW would define them; most are Driving 2 at best since the AVERAGE driver is Driving 0 (or Unaware depending on the city (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ). Professional and experienced truckers tend to actually be Driving 3 - have you seen them maneuver those things around corners I'd have trouble getting my CAR around or backing a 53' trailer up without help with centimeter accuracy? THAT is Professional (Rtg 3). I would give level 3 to most pursuit-trained Police Officers and high-level protection detail drivers. Level 4 would be the best of those groups and amateur stunt drivers. Level 5 is the average professional stunt driver and 6 is the guy doing the staged stunts for major movies. Olympic Gold Medalists are Gymnastics 6 but people who can do "impossible" moves (Scott Hammilton comes to mind in ice skating) is your Legendary. You can train people to duplicate his moves, but actually coming up with them? THERE lies the legend.

So, having established that a character with 3 or more skill has a cap of 6 any character swinging most non-personalized weapons if that's their role in the party is going to be limited by their weapon - not their skill. As to the values set on the ACC for weapons... I haven't delved too far into them. But consider this: most Sniper kills are from what would be considered "unaware" shots because they don't know it's coming. The best most troops can hope for is to declare "full defense" and hope for the best. When you can see (and shoot back at) your attacker, things get harder for both shooters. And despite dodge being unlimited, what's the most dice you can pull together from just [Dodge + Reaction + Consistent Modifiers]? There are way more ways to add dice to an attack than defense unless you give up your attack to defend. That was certainly our experience playing with it the way we did. Put it another way: most people can't match the modified dice pool of an attacker unless they seriously pumped Dodge. And all it takes to hurt is one net hit. Now, your experience with the SR5 limits per RAW is that between using an axe and the Physical Limit you can't hit a dead tree in the woods. If that's your experience (and as a dice mechanic junkie, I can see your point immediately) then taking a closer look at the Inherent Limits in SR5 and rethinking the basis of the ACC on any given weapon seems to be in order. But let me put it to you like this: if you are limited to 4 hits by weapon ACC, it takes 12 dice to give a even-odds chance of dodging entirely; how many times does the badguy really bring 12 dice to his defense pool if they're actively trying to hurt you right back? Maybe the answer is in moving bonuses to defense over as penalties to attack so your extra dice can soak up the losses instead of applying them to your hits? Just thinking out loud on that, mind you.

In a lot of play, the (non SR5 element) caps I suggested never caused the problems you're describing or anticipating so I'll sit down and have a HARD (read: OCD) look at the new limits with my pet spreadsheet program and get back on a possible quick-fix. I'm still convinced that using them to discourage dump stats is a mistake; using them to encourage improving all stats isn't quite the same thing. Pegging each skill to a linked-stat-specific limit (calculated at CharGen or Karma improvement) isn't math intensive at the table. And it's easy to pencil a number of "keep" dice next to the relevant skill with base dice pool is also easy. Then it's just add or subtract dice, roll them, and remove anything not a 1, 5 or 6 (check for glitch) and then pull out the 1s and extra hits if you're over caps. You can do the "math" with the dice on the table using your fingers which fixes problems with the "maths" - that's how I do it to make sure I don't screw up.

Does that version of my explanation change things for you? Because your "what if's" just never materialized.

S//Kerenshara

p.s.: good discussion. I suspect it may go back and forth a few times more but it's intelligent, articulate and polite. Hard to beat that in a forum.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Kerenshara... I think the confusion comes in with your proposed formula... It is as follows from you rprevious post.

The House Rule for making a Skill-based Limit would be [Limit=IF(Skill>0,Roundup(Skill/2,0),1] if you can read Excel.

The issue is that the Skill is being divided and rounded up, rather than multiplied, for your Limits in SR4. Skill 1 should give Limit 2, but your formula gives Limit 1. By the same token, Skill 3 SHOULD be Limit 6, rather than Limit 2. In the follow on discussions, I think that is what is causing issues. Could be wrong, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That, or I am reading your Excel Code wrong somehow. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[tjn]

Ok, good place to jump in. I understand that Missions are an official "thing" and that Missions need to allow them in. If people want to break a module, they don't need to be Module Monsters™ to do it. Seen THAT in Living Greyhawk as well. If Missions are going to be a given doohickey, then understanding people are going to break them also has to be a given.

I think it's a given that people will try to break the system, but I don't accept that they will break it. There's always a chance, but if it does happen, I feel that the response should be to ask how, and then fix the problem such that it doesn't happen again, and in such a way that it doesn't break something else down the line. That's not to say there shouldn't be an optimal way of number crunching a character to peak efficiency, only that peak efficiency is in the relative neighborhood as everything else. Furthermore, the dev should understand exactly what that peak efficiency would produce, and engineer the classic archetypes of that game to be produced by those optimal choices. By way example, I mean that when a player sits down and say "I want to play Fighter!" he's not looking to make the dancing flail guy or the guy that drops rats at his feet to use whirlwind attack+cleave, and by making choices that support the knight in shining armor, the barbarian with the big ass sword, or the light on his feet duelist, he's also making the most optimal choices mechanically.

To throw one's hands up and say that they're going to break the system anyways, so why even try to stop them... is a little too defeatist for my tastes.

Trying to make rues to stop that stifles home campaigns which are more free-form to begin with and winds up necessitating House Rules to remove the Mission-specific stuff. Did I actually get that explanation to make sense? Missions have to be RAW - no brainer. But making it so you almost HAVE to make House Rules to play a long-term game is nonsensical if you want to keep people who don't play the Missions.

I... don't follow. I'm not sure if there is any Missions specific stuff, only that Missions was used extensively for feedback on how to make the next iteration of the rules. Further, I'm not following how making rules stifles home campaigns at all, unless one's fighting a rules lawyer of canon nazi, but then the problem is the player, not the game. For everyone else, there's no jack booted thug to come and make sure everyone is in compliance with all the rules, so individual tables are free to do whatever they can all agree to. But then again, Missions is all about long term play, so I'm a little unsure about the objection.

Then again, the karma/nuyen award structure for runs from Missions isn't what one might call... enticing. Which is a whole 'nother debate (that has been viciously beaten around the head and neck).

And since I'm going to snip your post a bit, I've had bad experiences in the paid canned modules too. The good ones are more unusual than the meh or bad ones but I think my problem with Missions is they kind of do expect cookie cutter characters and if you build the mechanics around that you've built in a bias you need House Rules to get around. I'll make a point to steer clear of Ghost Cartels on your advice.

Snip away! But as for Ghost Cartels... it was very much not a match for my table. I don't want to trash it, because I'm sure someone, somewhere, got a lot of enjoyment out of it, but I found it somewhat unrelentingly grimdark, and one of my players hated it because it very much rewarded a scum playstyle, such as selling drugs to kids in school, killing undercover cops to prove your bonafides, and not being able to murder some morally reprehensible individuals because the entire plot would go off the rails if they died.

Ok, that sounds suspiciously like a class-based system by another name. Just sayin'.

Every character creation system is going to have an optimal set up, there's no getting around that, so rather than creating a bunch of piecemeal options together, start at the end and work backwards. And while Shadowrun isn't a class based system, there are very definitely archetypes that are clearly defined, and expected as to be playable by the playerbase. So, a good dev will engineer that whatever the optimal set up is, is right in line with those expected archetypes. You don't want the most effective character to be the underwater basketweaver, but if they happen to get the most plusses, there are going to be some players that will chose to be said basketweaver just for the plusses. They honestly don't want to play the basketweaver, they'd rather play the samurai, but they feel compelled to pick the optimal choice, be it for some sort of competitive edge, so as to not feel like they're letting the rest of the team down by making a "stupid" choice, or whatever. Further, there are those that are going to hate on said player just for the fact they choose to make a basketweaver and not something more traditionally accepted. By choosing to make the archetypes the most optimal choices, a lot of headaches are avoided.

Since the dice mechanics haven't changed,

While the bones of Stat+Skill hasn't changed, other things, such as the defense roll later on, definitely have, and have large impacts on the game. Limits are another thing, but I think we crossed wires on that discussion. I'm a big fan of house rules, and I think every table should have a discussion as to what they want from play, and if there are any changes to the base rules that would help foster those goals. That said, I also think it's very important to play at least one session "vanilla" to understand what exactly it is that you're changing. There's been things I've read that I've thought would end up horrible in play but turned out to be a non-issue, and similarly others that I didn't think twice about when reading, but threatened to stop the entire game in play.

Hmm, okay. There's computation and computation. This is actually the former. Most of the "computation" is done at CharGen and when spending Karma. The actual "maths" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) are no different than the RAW in play especially compared to SR5.

The difference is there's three limits vs a different limit for every skill, which then has to be compared to a separate limit. Yeah, the actual "maths" aren't hard or anything, but any math needs to take into account it's target audience, and if that target audience includes liberal arts majors... as a GM, I really don't want to do all their computations for them =p

Also, I ran out of the number of quote blocks allowed in a post, see the following post:

[tjn]

OK, here's where I know either you misread or I really blew the explanation.

I was going off of the excel formula! I even put it into excel! =p

This is what I understood: there was normal attribute limits, but for each skill, it had it's own limit equal to half the skill rank, round up (or a limit of one, if they didn't have the skill). Then for each skill you compare the two limits, and took whatever limit was lower. As a starting character is limited to a skill rank of six, half of that is three, and three is going to be almost always lower than the attribute limit, so the limit based upon the skill would take precedence.

The formula means somebody with Skill 2 has a cap of 4 kept hits.

Obviously I misinterpreted or something got lost in the translation =/ So, yeah, under that setup, concerns are less.. concernish?

most Sniper kills are from what would be considered "unaware" shots because they don't know it's coming.

This would be failing on the surprise test. A character doesn't get to have a defensive roll in this case, so it tracks with RAW.

And despite dodge being unlimited,

Can't remember SR4 off hand, but this isn't the case in 5: every attack inflicts a cumuliative -1 to the defense pool, and autofire and the choke setting on shotguns also will put a crimp on the dodge monkey.

what's the most dice you can pull together from just [Dodge + Reaction + Consistent Modifiers]?

It's now Reaction+Intuition, so even standard mooks are going to have five-ish dice to dodge, and anyone decent at combat should have at least seven without any modifiers.

There are way more ways to add dice to an attack than defense unless you give up your attack to defend.

New rule doesn't make you give up your current attack, instead you take a -10 to your initiative score, which effectively makes you give up your last attack in the round, but doesn't normally effect your current phase. And going full defense adds the character's Willpower to the dodge pool, so now most people are going to have at least a 7 dodge, and if they're a combat character, they're now going to be around a twelve. This bonus from Willpower is now applied against everysubsequent attack, and if the character wants to take an additional -5 initiative (again, doesn't hurt their current action unless it would bring them below 0 initiative), they can add their gymnastics to that dodge roll to (but only against that one roll). Even at a dice pool of 12, you get an expected 4 hits, and since ties go to the defender (unless making a touch attack), things like a Combat Axe with a limit of 4 very rarely connect against a competent combat character.

Now add a maxed Combat Sense Adept power, and watch the character do a moonwalk up the beach at Normandy.

Put it another way: most people can't match the modified dice pool of an attacker unless they seriously pumped Dodge.

Sure, it's fairly easy to get a dice pool around 18 for a decently optimized build, but using all those dice is another matter entirely, though if you're using Smartlink (and anyone serious about combat really should be), they should get at least a limit of 7. So in a straight up fight, the attacker should still have a decent chance to tag the above combat operative with a 12 defense pool, but then you start adding things like cover, lighting and visibility, and things start getting murky again.

But let me put it to you like this: if you are limited to 4 hits by weapon ACC, it takes 12 dice to give a even-odds chance of dodging entirely; how many times does the badguy really bring 12 dice to his defense pool if they're actively trying to hurt you right back?

My answer would be, if this individual is a named individual (and not a mook), has a combat role and is decent at it, and has a healthy respect for getting the hell out of the way of flying lead? Every time. Different folks may have different analyses, but see above as to how I got there.

Maybe the answer is in moving bonuses to defense over as penalties to attack so your extra dice can soak up the losses instead of applying them to your hits? Just thinking out loud on that, mind you.

I could see that for the Gymnastics dodge (or some of the melee blocking options), but the Willpower bonus is for the whole round, and against every attack that person faces.

In a lot of play, the (non SR5 element) caps I suggested never caused the problems you're describing or anticipating so I'll sit down and have a HARD (read: OCD) look at the new limits with my pet spreadsheet program and get back on a possible quick-fix. I'm still convinced that using them to discourage dump stats is a mistake; using them to encourage improving all stats isn't quite the same thing. Pegging each skill to a linked-stat-specific limit (calculated at CharGen or Karma improvement) isn't math intensive at the table. And it's easy to pencil a number of "keep" dice next to the relevant skill with base dice pool is also easy. Then it's just add or subtract dice, roll them, and remove anything not a 1, 5 or 6 (check for glitch) and then pull out the 1s and extra hits if you're over caps. You can do the "math" with the dice on the table using your fingers which fixes problems with the "maths" - that's how I do it to make sure I don't screw up.

Does that version of my explanation change things for you? Because your "what if's" just never materialized.

If a skill of 2 comes out to a limit of 4, yeah there's little problem for combat rolls, I'm just unsure how a skill of 2, under [Limit=IF(Skill>0,Roundup(Skill/2,0),1] gets to 4.

However there's still a little concern with contested rolls with things like social skills. Take Con, the person doing the conning rolls Cha+Con and the person resisting the con rolls... Cha+Con. Let's assume the guy conning has a decent charisma of 4 and a con of 2, for a limit of 4, and the other guy is a fairly upstanding individual with an amazing Charisma of 7 (let's say he's an elf), but no skill in Con. If I'm reading your formula right, the conner has 6 dice with a 4 limit, but the connee has 6 dice and a limit of just one. Despite having the exact same dice pool, the connee has no chance to ever beat the conner unless the conner rolls supremely badly. It's not as extreme as I initially thought, but it does put a large emphasis on getting as many skills as possible in any sort of contested roll, so as to not be instantly bulldozed when you don't have the skill at all. Whether that's a feature or a bug depends on one's viewpoint.

And thanks for the debate =) but this is Dumpshock, we really should be calling each other names by this point =p

[cndblank]

Basing the limit on the skill kinda defeats the purpose.

I will say that limits are a very good way to have all your stats (or the condition of your gear) to impact the use of a skill.

Certainly it works for showing an aging runner who is very skilled yet has slowed down physically.

He knows exactly what to do and how to do it, but is limited because he is not as fast\tough\strong as he once was.

I like the suggestion that weapons instead of having an accuracy stat have an accuracy modifier (Streetline Special -3, Ranger Arms +3) but that would take calculating it on the fly.

[Samoth]

The #1 thing that bothers me about SR5 is the writing tone. There are rules in the fluff, fluff in the rules, and lame jokes sprinkled throughout. Keep the technical stuff technical (maybe hire an editor???) and let the fluff stand alone and we've got a good thing going. As it stands, there's too much conflicting or vague information in the book that requires heavy houseruling. A good example is what happens when cyberware gets bricked. By the book, bricked gear stops working, can cause fires and sparks, etc. However, there are no actual hard rules for this, so what happens when your wired reflexes get bricked? Totally GM-dependent, which would be OK if the writers of the book stated that, but they didn't, they just left a fluff comment about fires and sparks and called it a day.

[Abschalten]

SR5 = Grognard Appeasement Edition. It took SR4, gave it the death of a thousand cuts with lots of tiny, inane rules changes that made the game pretty shit, and then gave it a couple good direct stabs just to make sure it wouldn't breathe again.

SR5 has a handful of good ideas, which by themselves would've IMPROVED and augmented what SR4 did for the game. SR4 and SR4A were not perfect but they took some big steps in the right direction, and with some proper changes would've made great new editions for the game.

The new edition is such a fucking mess that you have to either go back to SR4A to have a solid basis for moving forward again... or start over. Or there's always option C: let Shadowrun die. Seriously, I think the current crop of devs have killed it. Time to find new games to play. The line isn't going to get any better without some French Revolution style beheadings in the line's upper management. Or maybe just transferring the IP to another company, one that isn't overrun by embezzlers, grognards, and yes-men.

[psychophipps]

SR5 = Grognard Appeasement Edition. It took SR4, gave it the death of a thousand cuts with lots of tiny, inane rules changes that made the game pretty shit, and then gave it a couple good direct stabs just to make sure it wouldn't breathe again.

SR5 has a handful of good ideas, which by themselves would've IMPROVED and augmented what SR4 did for the game. SR4 and SR4A were not perfect but they took some big steps in the right direction, and with some proper changes would've made great new editions for the game.

The new edition is such a fucking mess that you have to either go back to SR4A to have a solid basis for moving forward again... or start over. Or there's always option C: let Shadowrun die. Seriously, I think the current crop of devs have killed it. Time to find new games to play. The line isn't going to get any better without some French Revolution style beheadings in the line's upper management. Or maybe just transferring the IP to another company, one that isn't overrun by embezzlers, grognards, and yes-men.

But the good news is, he's not bitter! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

On a more serious note, there are are enough posters here that I have come to respect and their opinions have kept me from even going the "let's pick it up for bits to add to my SR4A game" route. I have, to be frank, been far from impressed with what I have seen myself, or the reports from others that have opinions that I usually agree with that have delved deeper into the ruleset of 5th.

[Abschalten]

But the good news is, he's not bitter! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm normally pretty chill, but I've had a few. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The cumulative weight of all the ill-advised rules changes really bothered me when I first dove into SR5, but technomancers was really the final straw for me. And even after I hit that breaking point, I still ran a session of the game for a friend, which only solidified my disdain for the new edition.

I also played in a couple sessions of SR5 at a gaming convention. Funny story, the group I played with were having a decent amount of fun, but playing with the rules incorrectly. When I stepped up and pointed out what the rules really said and how they were supposed to be used (in a Missions game, so this is a legit concern), they started having less fun, too. You could see the light fading from their eyes.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Basing the limit on the skill kinda defeats the purpose.

I will say that limits are a very good way to have all your stats (or the condition of your gear) to impact the use of a skill.

Certainly it works for showing an aging runner who is very skilled yet has slowed down physically.

He knows exactly what to do and how to do it, but is limited because he is not as fast\tough\strong as he once was.

I like the suggestion that weapons instead of having an accuracy stat have an accuracy modifier (Streetline Special -3, Ranger Arms +3) but that would take calculating it on the fly.

I'll ditto this.

Everyone has different preferences, but I'll say i am digging limits in play. I thought I'd hate them but I think they rock. Maybe agility should have factored in even with its huge skill list, and i do wish accuracy was a limit mod and not a separate limit but overall its been a blast. Its been fun when I tried to jump a gap and my limit capped me from succeeding, and making it a decision to get the awesome role by using edge has been fun as well.

[DeathStrobe]

Limits? Either totally irrelevant or a major hindrance. Case in point. We had a dwarf melee guy who wanted to use an axe. Great. Very fantasy dwarf. Fun. Too bad you can rarely hit with an axe due to its low limit. He would almost always hit this limit but his foes would usually also hit this as well, meaning he missed far more often than he hit. And what weapon would he have to switch to in order to remove this problem? The katana. So there goes his concept. Wow. Great. So every one needs to just switch to katanas cuz they are just soooooo cool. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif) Hello 80s. Good to see you again.

What are your enemies rolling? 12 dice? 6 reaction + 6 intuition? That sounds like something any starting character should definitely not be fighting on a regular bases. That's like elite corporate security level opposition, and that kind of stuff you should be running from at the start, not staying and slaughtering them. And if the limit was such a problem, there is edge to ignore the limit. Not to mention that the combat ax is the HIGHEST DV melee weapon in the game. Do you honestly think that's balanced to have it one shot people and have good accuracy?

They increased the drain codes, which is fine and good but they nerfed the combat spell damage.

SR4
Lighting Bolt
Drain: (f/2)+3

Force level = drain value
Forse 1 = 3
Forse 2 = 4
Force 3 = 4
Force 4 = 5
Force 5 = 5
Force 6 = 6

SR5
Lighting Bolt
Drain: f-3

Forse 1 = 2
Forse 2 = 2
Force 3 = 2
Force 4 = 2
Force 5 = 2
Force 6 = 3

Also, while SR4's magic damage is half impact armor, SR5's is force = AP. So SR5's magic will hit harder lightly armored targets, while SR4 will hit heavily armored targets harder. The point still is though, you're wrong. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

That initiative system is just 3rd edition with some bits tacked on. More paperwork for the ref and players with advantage that ... hmmm. There isn't one.

The advantage is that IP boosters are no longer THE most important combat stat. This means Street Sams can boost other attributes to be combat effective, and that everyone else doesn't instantly die.

[tjn]

What are your enemies rolling? 12 dice?

Does the character fit into a combat role like a Samurai or an Adept, and said enemy is supposed to be an even level challenge to starting characters fresh out of the book? Yes, yes they are rolling twelve (or more) dice of defense, but it's not because everyone has 6 Reaction + 6 Intuition.

After making more than a few characters, a starting character focused on physical combat tends ends up with a R+I of around 7, and this without cyber or magic modifications. But here's the thing, I've yet to make a character (of 30 or so) with a Wil less than 5 under normal priority rules. And since full defense is actually decent in this edition, this then pushes us to that magical twelve dice plateau. Now add cyber or magic to negate any potential reach advantage (or more), and there's a very good chance that the combat axe will have a really hard time hitting, assuming equal opposition that isn't surprised.

Hell, if you go with Professional Rating 4 grunts (the standard organized crime grunt out of the book), they're going to have 12 dice to defend if they get a decent initiative roll. Granted, they have no cyber to counter the combat axe's reach, but under the karma rewards, being out numbered 2 to 1 by Professional Rating 4 mooks is worth specific mentioning as a modifier for the run's payment. As in, being outnumbered 2 to 1 by mooks that can have 12 dice to defend is something that's almost expected as a common occurrence. This common occurrence does demand more payment, but still, this level of opposition is expected per RAW.

Guns can combat this problem by getting smartlinks to up the limit or using choke settings or autofire to strip away defensive dice. The combat axe on the other hand (barring anything out of Run & Gun (which I don't have yet)), is relatively worthless unless you like spending edge or can consistently create environmental factors to act as a negative on the defense test because most other melee combat modifiers act as a bonus for the attacker, which is meh with a low limit like 4.

Yes, this is a level of opposition that you're not supposed to be slaughtering outright, but it is a level of opposition that a starting runner is supposed to be able to handle and deal with, and a combat axe has a really hard time dealing with this basic level of opposition. Sure it can one shot people, but if you have to blow Edge to reliably hit, you might was well get the katana, which doesn't have these problems hitting and will be just as lethal as the combat axe in the hands of someone able to hit the limit consistently.

Welcome to the 80's indeed.

[DeathStrobe]

Hell, if you go with Professional Rating 4 grunts (the standard organized crime grunt out of the book), they're going to have 12 dice to defend if they get a decent initiative roll. Granted, they have no cyber to counter the combat axe's reach, but under the karma rewards, being out numbered 2 to 1 by Professional Rating 4 mooks is worth specific mentioning as a modifier for the run's payment. As in, being outnumbered 2 to 1 by mooks that can have 12 dice to defend is something that's almost expected as a common occurrence. This common occurrence does demand more payment, but still, this level of opposition is expected per RAW.

Those rating 4 grunts have a whopping 8 initiative +1d6. Meaning they have at most 2 IP and more often than not only 1. So how threatening is someone that is spending their entire initiative on trying to not die honestly going to be?

But lets look at this another way. So we have a dwarf, lets assume he's got something around 9 str at chargen. His ax does 14p, and this can be much higher, lets pretend we're not munchkins at the moment.

The opposition has an lined coat and body of 4 -4ap from the ax. So that's 9 soak dice. Lets say our dwarf gets 1 net hit, so is doing 15p. Our ganger rolls really well and gets 5 soak. He takes 10p, he dies! His condition monitor is only 10 boxes!

Our dwarf street sam only needs 1 net hit to pretty much one shot this guy and most others. This weapon NEEDS a low accuracy because its too powerful otherwise. I'm sure its very horrible that this Ax isn't the answer to all your combat situations, but it shouldn't be.

[Lobo0705]

I'm just having a good time trying to picture the dwarf carrying and wielding a 6 foot long combat axe (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

SR4
Lighting Bolt
Drain: (f/2)+3

Force level = drain value
Forse 1 = 3
Forse 2 = 4
Force 3 = 4
Force 4 = 5
Force 5 = 5
Force 6 = 6

SR5
Lighting Bolt
Drain: f-3

Forse 1 = 2
Forse 2 = 2
Force 3 = 2
Force 4 = 2
Force 5 = 2
Force 6 = 3

Also, while SR4's magic damage is half impact armor, SR5's is force = AP. So SR5's magic will hit harder lightly armored targets, while SR4 will hit heavily armored targets harder. The point still is though, you're wrong. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Deathstrobe - He did not say that the Drain was Nerfed. He said the DAMAGE was Nerfed, and it was indeed Nerfed. You really cannot argue that at all.
Direct Spells went from Force + Net Hits to Just Net Hits. If it Looks like a Nerf, Acts Like a Nerf and Sounds like a Nerf, it is probably a Nerf.

[Jack VII]

Deathstrobe - He did not say that the Drain was Nerfed. He said the DAMAGE was Nerfed, and it was indeed Nerfed.

He also said the drain was increased, which Deathstrobe proved to be incorrect (at least in the case of Lightning Bolt).

Direct spells were dicked though. I think they should at least do half-force damage as a baseline.

[Medicineman]

SR5 has a handful of good ideas, which by themselves would've IMPROVED and augmented what SR4 did for the game. SR4 and SR4A were not perfect but they took some big steps in the right direction, and with some proper changes would've made great new editions for the game.

+1

and I'm going to do exactly that
I'll be taking the best of the SR5 Rules (Skills---->12 f.e. ) maybe change them (Skills --->9 (10 with aptitude) to make it streamline) insert them into my 4A Games and continue playing 4a
So instead of moaning toooo much about how shitty SR5 is (it is though and sometimes you'll find me moaning cause a facepalm hurts sometimes) I'll just get the best of both SR worlds and make it a better one

with a better (slightly moaning) Dance
Medicineman

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

He also said the drain was increased, which Deathstrobe proved to be incorrect (at least in the case of Lightning Bolt).

Direct spells were dicked though. I think they should at least do half-force damage as a baseline.

Ahh... Missed the Drain Reference apparently. Thanks Jack VII... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

+1

and I'm going to do exactly that
I'll be taking the best of the SR5 Rules (Skills---->12 f.e. ) maybe change them (Skills --->9 (10 with aptitude) to make it streamline) insert them into my 4A Games and continue playing 4a
So instead of moaning toooo much about how shitty SR5 is (it is though and sometimes you'll find me moaning cause a facepalm hurts sometimes) I'll just get the best of both SR worlds and make it a better one

with a better (slightly moaning) Dance
Medicineman

As long as your hands are visible at all times and the dance is not Slow, we are good. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

[Sengir]

SR5 = Grognard Appeasement Edition.

That sums it up quite well: We've always done it like that, we never had that before, give me back my million-dollar samurai

[Mantis]

+1

and I'm going to do exactly that
I'll be taking the best of the SR5 Rules (Skills---->12 f.e. ) maybe change them (Skills --->9 (10 with aptitude) to make it streamline) insert them into my 4A Games and continue playing 4a
So instead of moaning toooo much about how shitty SR5 is (it is though and sometimes you'll find me moaning cause a facepalm hurts sometimes) I'll just get the best of both SR worlds and make it a better one

with a better (slightly moaning) Dance
Medicineman

This is pretty much exactly what we've elected to do. I've even made changes in Chummer to reflect things like a skill cap of 9.

As for drain codes of spells, outside of Indirect Combat spells, which honestly, had too high a drain in SR4 compared to direct spells, all the other spells, on average, when used at a meaningful force, have a higher drain code than they did in 4th edition (enough qualifiers in there?). I'm sure if someone else wants to prove me wrong they can grab some more exceptions to that but if you look them over, yeah, higher drain, which, as I said in the original post was a good thing. Nerfing Direct combat spell damage and setting its drain to the same as an equivalent indirect spell makes no sense to me. It seems like a double nerf, higher drain and lower damage? Why?

For the mooks my players were facing, we were playing through some of the adventures in Sprawl Wilds and Firing Line. So published baddies, not something I made up just to screw with people. All it really takes for a mook to equal those 4 hits on the axe accuracy is a slightly above average roll and some modifiers. Or he could take 5 off his initiative and add his melee skill to the mix. Throw in edge and it is very easy to start getting those 4 hits to counter the axe. There is nothing the player can do to offset this, making the axe a pointless weapon. High damage is meaningless unless you can hit with it.
Sure the axe does lots of damage, but there are plenty of other weapons that do lots of damage that aren't hindered by low accuracy. Like half the assault rifles and every sniper rifle or the katana, . The axe just has goofy stats. A pole arm does less damage and is slightly more accurate? Why? A staff is more accurate? And what makes the katana the magic, must have weapon? 80s nostalgia? Its a sword but somehow its slashes are just sooooo much more accurate (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif) . I mean it is a good sword for what it was designed to do but it isn't 'teh best sord evarz!!!'
It seems like each class of weapons has 1 or maybe 2 weapons in that category that are worth looking at and the rest are pointless. Why bother with them then? They fill space that could be better taken by rule explanations or making the book shorter, and no one is going to use them. May as well just go with Heavy Pistol, SMG, Assault Rifle, etc, set the stats to Ares Predator, Ingram Smartgun and Ares Alpha and save yourself pages of gear fluff and rules. The game was supposed to be getting some streamlining right? There is a perfect place to do so. If the gear doesn't have some meaningful purpose, why bother with it?

[Stahlseele]

That sums it up quite well: We've always done it like that, we never had that before, give me back my million-dollar samurai

if that was the goal they managed to miss it . . .

[Sengir]

Sure the axe does lots of damage, but there are plenty of other weapons that do lots of damage that aren't hindered by low accuracy. Like half the assault rifles and every sniper rifle or the katana, . The axe just has goofy stats. A pole arm does less damage and is slightly more accurate? Why? A staff is more accurate? And what makes the katana the magic, must have weapon? 80s nostalgia? Its a sword but somehow its slashes are just sooooo much more accurate (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif) . I mean it is a good sword for what it was designed to do but it isn't 'teh best sord evarz!!!'

Really, the idea of accuracy for melee weapons always sounded wrong to me. Not mechanically, just the idea that a length of metal and wood somehow is more or less accurate at hitting stuff than another length of metal...

[X-Kalibur]

Really, the idea of accuracy for melee weapons always sounded wrong to me. Not mechanically, just the idea that a length of metal and wood somehow is more or less accurate at hitting stuff than another length of metal...

Well, depending on the quality of the craftsmanship, it could have an effect on accuracy... but not that drastically. A well made cut and thrust sword should be able to accurately stab a ping pong ball hanging from a string with one hand. If the balance point is off you'll have a hard time making an accurate thrust. Katanas in particular need a fair amount of free area around you to swing as well, as they aren't make for thrusting. Limits for all melee weapons really should be based somehow on skill, rather than an arbitrary "accuracy" stat.