Sixth Edition, Release Announcement Options

[Jaid]

Gee, it's almost like a lot of the people posting here have been playing since before 3e was the currently supported version, and have already done all that effort...

for that matter, by the look of things there is going to be a fair amount of work for many of us even if we decided to use 6th edition in terms of creating house rules... so if you're going to be making house rules, it really isn't any worse to start from a finished 3rd (or 4th) edition than it is to start from a barely-started 6th. and given the presence of people who have been working with those earlier editions for years, i'd say it's a fair chance you could get some guidance on popular house rules from those earlier editions should you feel so inclined (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Sendaz]

I think the first house rule we will be considering is letting the armour value (or just the highest armor piece in the case where multiple armor pieces are worn to avoid silly stacks) add dice to the damage soak roll.
But again it will depend on what the actual final damage and armor values are in the core book as values may change...

[Nstol_wisper]

I figure people will be reapplying the damge modifier for strength with melee weapons.
But how do you account for no skill with the weapon? Then just trusting your attack rating against say, a low body attribute and low armor if you have the avantage should be enough?

[binarywraith]

That's an excellent question to ask the incompetents who designed 6e.

[hermit]

When a game is skilled advancement based with attributes and with relatively low numbers, all the skills rolls will tend to have the same results as there is little room for randomness.

Uhm, what. Do you want to say there is little granularity in the results? That's not true in SR3, as the to-hit was variable too, and you're more likely to roll a 2 with 1d6 than an 11 (exploding) with 8. Success probability was very scalable, much ore than in subsequent editions. It was also less predictable and exploding dice scale horribly nonlinear but there you go. A lot of criticism can be made about SR3's core variable TN/Pool system, but "it lacks granularity" is not one of them.

It seems you never got into the core mechanism of 3E (too much work?). There wasn't that much to house rule, but it was a very chrunchy system with a number of individually well-working mechanisms (the Matrix rules are way undervalued), but no common, unified design that makes rules instantly recognizable (like SR4 tried to introduce with it's attribute+skill dogma, which it then itself immediately broke because it produced seriously bad results, given the existence of magic that raises attributes, with matrix and rigging). Every aspect of SR3, effectively, had its own rules. Rules that individually worked very well within a simulationist view of game design, but where each aspect of the game meant learning a somewhat different rules set. However, it required little in house rules; aside from detail fixes you always have even in the most well-designed simulationist games, you could play it all out of the box with little problem.

Completely unlike SR5, which needed a number of fixes to even barely work.

[Nstol_wisper]

Uhm, what. Do you want to say there is little granularity in the results?

No, I actually said exactly what I meant as in this example it made no sense to use words like granularity without explaing exactly what I mean.
This was not a single case I was explaining and was my reasoning why any system with the same principles was not a great one therefore cause, effect and a possible solution was given. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Nstol_wisper]

That's an excellent question to ask the incompetents who designed 6e.

I've read discussions in the past were people has complained that the strength bonus coupled with the high body attribute was too much.
And I agree somewhat that weapon strength bonuses in the past were a bit too high for a skill based game.

[binarywraith]

I've read discussions in the past were people has complained that the strength bonus coupled with the high body attribute was too much.
And I agree somewhat that weapon strength bonuses in the past were a bit too high for a skill based game.

Yet you've clearly not spent enough time actually playing the game to understand what the issue is in context. That is purely a character optimization complaint that doesn't pose any practical problem in actual gameplay, because the GM can simply shoot that character from outside of melee range.

[Nstol_wisper]

Someone skilled with a melee weapon or martial arts should have the advantage over a less skilled opponent. At least now with the new Edge system a martial art or the like will actually give a more noticeable advantage over an unskilled or less skilled opponent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/scatter.gif)

[binarywraith]

Someone skilled with a melee weapon or martial arts should have the advantage over a less skilled opponent. At least now with the new Edge system a martial art or the like will actually give a more noticeable advantage over an unskilled or less skilled opponent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/scatter.gif)

So which is it? Is bonus strength and body too good, or does being better statted for melee and martial arts mean you should have a tangible advantage in combat? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Sendaz]

Someone skilled with a melee weapon or martial arts should have the advantage over a less skilled opponent. At least now with the new Edge system a martial art or the like will actually give a more noticeable advantage over an unskilled or less skilled opponent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/scatter.gif)

You do have an advantage with skills, just not EDGE

Page 9 in the quick start lists Unarmed having an Attack Rating for Edge comparison as being the combination of Strength + Reaction, actual skill levels in a MA does not affect this.

Likewise Defense Rating is down to Reaxction + Intuition, plus any armor or other gear mods, again skill does not affect Edge calculations.

So Bruce LeRoy with a Strength of 4, Reaction of 5 and 6 levels in a MA does not get any Edge from throwing down against an unskilled opponent who happens to have Reaction 5 and Intuition 4 but only 2 levels in MA as they have the same base total ratings of their stats, that being 9.
PLUS if the defender was wearing armor Bruce could actually be at the Edge disadvantage in a fight depending on the level of armor worn, despite having more skill in fighting.
Bruce does gets to throw more dice at the problem, but won't be getting any bonus Edge to spend in that fight unless they wrinkle out some other type of positional advantage to provide some.

That is one of the complaints about Edge, it is kind of unevenly applied throughout and seems more gear/magic driven. The purpose was to streamline it, but it does seem a bit clunky right now.

But we have not seen Core yet, so there may be more ways to earn Edge. Maybe a MA will have in it's description that you can earn a point of Edge to be used toward doing certain things, so like Judo might give a point of edge that can only be used for their Great Throw attack.

But we don't know yet and it may be wishful thinking.

[bannockburn]

Someone skilled with a melee weapon or martial arts should have the advantage over a less skilled opponent. At least now with the new Edge system a martial art or the like will actually give a more noticeable advantage over an unskilled or less skilled opponent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/scatter.gif)

It's almost like someone with a martial art quality already has an advantage. Even back in SR4, it's access to the specialization giving a flat +2 dice, various bonuses depending on style, and access to maneuvers.
Melee weapons likewise have various advantages, starting from the point that it's easier to get physical damage out of them, reach bonus and so on.
Even considering an equally skilled opponent, not a less skilled one like you postulated, these advantages are there, and very noticeable.

Your last sentence is nonsensical as well: Everyone who's skilled has a HUGE advantage over an "unskilled or less skilled" opponent, regardless of style or weapon. That's just mathematics. Why compound the issue with a weird Edge mechanic? It's not like it's needed at this particular example, and only adds another calculation before the attack, i.e. making it more complicated.

[Nstol_wisper]

The point actually was how a character with high strengh and body tends to cancel out those advantages.

[bannockburn]

Good point, if it were true.

High Strength only contributes to a good base damage, not to general ability in hitting or avoiding to get hit.
High Body is always great, but out of the defensive stats is the hardest to stack. Furthermore, it has lower returns because damage avoidance is superior to damage reduction. Reaction is way more important since it can completely negate an attack, and it can be raised easier with augmentations. Armor is also easier to put on top of your body attribute.

Body and Strength are mechanically less important than Agility or Reaction, so I see it as a plus to have actual value if you decide to put resources into either. It prevents further devaluation in comparison to the "God stats", like Agility.

[hermit]

No, I actually said exactly what I meant as in this example it made no sense to use words like granularity without explaing exactly what I mean.

It made no sense, indeed.

[Sendaz]

In the meantime,

No 6th ed PDF yet on Drivethru, but the Errata has been released to start fixing things already. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

https://www.shadowrunsixthworld.com/wp-cont...ta-Aug-2019.pdf

From seeing some of the corrections, bone density BioWare and bone lacing cyberware will both be adding Body for damage resistance purposes as expected along with the usual changing unarmed damage to physical, adding to your Attack Rating.

A correction to grenade launcher also shows some of the expected damage from a fragmentation grenade, 16P for Ground Zero/12P for Close /8P for Near.
Am assuming actual blast zone ranges are smaller than weapon ranges, otherwise that 8p would be going out 50m as Near is 4-50 ,which seems unlikely and would prove hazardous to the group themselves, but if they are different meanings and they are using the same terms that's not confusing at all.
Will have to see..
Edit: Just checked at another forum and they said each type of grenade will have their own cap on what their Near Range Damage extends to.


Compare that to the Ares Predator's DV of 4P and you can see why someone is getting a semi-auto grenade launcher and riot shield (to duck behind) for Xmas again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Stahlseele]

SR3:
Roll skill to throw grenade. (let us assume 2 hits)
Roll 2D6 to figure out deviation from target point.
Substract Hits from Grenade Throw Skill Roll from Deviation. So-2.
Deviation is in Meters. So 2d6 means 2 to 12m off. If you had rolled snake-eyes on the deviation roll, you would have 2m of deviation.
And substract 2 from that for this example. Direct hit/ground zero. Ful Grenade Damage.
Grenade DMG drops of by 1 or 2 points per Meter, depending on AP or HE Grenade.
Much more simpler.

[Nstol_wisper]

Going by the Errata.....
It's looking like the changes in 6e compared to 5e are the least between editions so far.
For the Matrix take away Grids and and the more complex Master Device, that is the spirit of 6e Martrix.
They had me wondering how a PAN would operate without slaving, but you obviously still can.

[Nath]

It's looking like the changes in 6e compared to 5e are the least between editions so far.

Obviously, we're nowhere near the amount of changes introduced by the 4th edition (which introduced attribute+skill dicepool, fixed target number, fixed initiative passes, removed damage level and the bonus pools...). But the 6th edition Edge pool mechanism alone is far more consequential than all the changes between 2nd and 3rd edition (the biggest being, what, reversing Initiative Pass order and... removing the Skill Web?).

[hermit]

the biggest being, what, reversing Initiative Pass order and... removing the Skill Web?

And the new, host-based, Matrix system, though that only became usable later, with Matrix. Othetr than that, it was details, like the split of Firearms and the integration of stuff introduced into 2nd in splatbooks.

[Nath]

And the new, host-based, Matrix system, though that only became usable later, with Matrix.

Changing how the Matrix is mandatory for a new edition anyway (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[binarywraith]

So there's a leaked PDF that matches the books. The folks on Reddit are laughing their asses off at just how bad this book is.

Typo ridden beyond even CGL norms, a 16 total page GM section. Day zero errata doc that contains it's own typos.

Strap in chummers, it's CGL season.

[Iduno]

So there's a leaked PDF that matches the books. The folks on Reddit are laughing their asses off at just how bad this book is.

Typo ridden beyond even CGL norms, a 16 total page GM section. Day zero errata doc that contains it's own typos.

Strap in chummers, it's CGL season.

I agreed with that being the most CGL thing, until I read they did errata. They did it wrong, but they still actually wrote it and published it.

[Nstol_wisper]

I'm thinking that Awakened Deckers will be fun in this edition, more so than 5e. No limits, maybe new spells, mentor spirits,....

[Prime Mover]

A few thoughts. Edge is going to require a cheat sheet for every player or there going to be a lot of slow down in the action. Lower damage codes seem to be an attempt to offset lack of armor soak. While this seems reasonable at early game, doesn’t look to scale well when advancement kicks in. See some good changes and ideas but like most of “new” editions it seems to suffer from lack of polish. I know what pain it is to open play test but honestly think SR Would benefit greatly from a larger test base.