IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Breaking up Magic, or the thinking mages Firearms
Typhon
post Mar 16 2005, 04:02 PM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 29-January 05
From: San Diego, California
Member No.: 7,032



one thing that always bothered me from the jump from 2nd to 3rd edition was that the Firearm skill got it broken up in to different categories but the Sorcery or conjuring skills we're kept together , so as a Mage in 3rd Edition could have a 6 in Spell casting , Spell defense , dispelling , and Astral combat for just those 6 starting skill points but a Mundane Weapon specialist to have a 6 in pistols , Rifles , shotguns , and Assault-Rifles has to spend 24 points , just always though the breaking up of the Firearms skill is just something the mundanes got cheated on , what with a Mage could just drop assault-rifles out of the weapon specialist line up and be almost as strong weapon selection wise , and be able to have a knowledge of all things arcane ... I don't know maybe its the lack of sleep talking ... but it would be nice if 4th edition either gave us back Firearms , or IMO a better course of action would be to split up the magic skills
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bigity
post Mar 16 2005, 04:04 PM
Post #2


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 02
From: Lubbock, TX
Member No.: 3,024



Maybe while streamlining the rules, some skills are combined/eliminated and the total number of skill points is adjusted down to compensate. Of course, I can't really think of any that need it aside from Firearms and Armed Combat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dizzo Dizzman
post Mar 16 2005, 04:35 PM
Post #3


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 91
Joined: 23-January 05
From: Washington, DC
Member No.: 7,007



I would be very happy if that streamlined some of the combat skills into a smaller group:

Small Arms (all 4 pistol categories, SMGs): Really what is the difference between an fully automatic machine pistol and a SMG besides the damage code?

Long Arms (Rifles, A.R., Shotguns): While the three of them are very different, I don't think it is unreasonable to have them all together. Most difficult part: coming up with a name for the category that sounds cool.

Heavy Weapons (Light, Medium, Heavy)

Launch Weapons (grenade, missile, motar)

That would also give characters the chance to specialize in an entire sub-category of firearms (i.e shotguns would be a specialization rather than a category). I would also break the melee weapons into three groups: edged, blunt (polearms/clubs), and whips.

Just my thoughts, and I know they'll have no effect on anything, but it makes me feel like I'm participating in SR4. And isn't that what dumpshock is all about? :|
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*
post Mar 16 2005, 05:47 PM
Post #4





Guests






QUOTE (Dizzo Dizzman)
I would be very happy if that streamlined some of the combat skills into a smaller group:

Small Arms (all 4 pistol categories, SMGs): Really what is the difference between an fully automatic machine pistol and a SMG besides the damage code?

How you hold it, carry, fire it, reload it, and basically how you use it in a combat situation.

QUOTE
Long Arms (Rifles, A.R., Shotguns): While the three of them are very different, I don't think it is unreasonable to have them all together. Most difficult part: coming up with a name for the category that sounds cool.

Shooting rifles and shotguns are two different skills.

not going to bother with the rest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mintcar
post Mar 16 2005, 06:04 PM
Post #5


Karma Police
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,358
Joined: 22-July 04
From: Gothenburg, SE
Member No.: 6,505



If we're lucky the´ll make room for an equal amount of skills in all areas, because the game will be more about skills. It´s just speculation, of course. But their braking down the walls between deckers and riggers. So maybe they have set it up like this: You have the choice from char gen if you want access to one or more of the two realms that exists beyond human senses, magic and matrix. After that it´s all about what you know, and what you own. There would be no need to ballance riggers with samurai with mages. You know that´s the reason for the split up of the combat skills. Deckers had their matrix, mages had their magic, stuff they knew that nobody else did. The split up was so that a character could be niched towards firearms and combat without being barely better with guns than the mage. Now, if just about everyone has access to the matrix anyway, they could make the skills in that area more detailed, because there would be no need of having that huge amount of nuyen being the big obstical. They could finaly make it so that your skills and attributes makes you what you are, and all the other stuff just makes you better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jrayjoker
post Mar 16 2005, 06:30 PM
Post #6


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,453
Joined: 17-September 04
From: St. Paul
Member No.: 6,675



Not to be a party pooper, but the mages used Karma so quickly that starting with an umbrella skill that didn't need to be deved as often was not that great an advantage over the Sammie with 6 skills in weapons. Besides, the mage needed combat skills to survive too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mintcar
post Mar 16 2005, 06:38 PM
Post #7


Karma Police
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,358
Joined: 22-July 04
From: Gothenburg, SE
Member No.: 6,505



But what I´m talking about is to ditch the artificial, across-the-board game balancers. You could make character concepts about skills, resources, tech and magic, in any combination you like. There would be no need to balance archetypes against eachother, because you would not be limited to one. It would cost you some points to get access to the matrix or magic, but not as much as it does in the current edition (instead the actual skill in using them would be what´s expencive). After that, your concept is defined by your further choices in skills and toys. That´s what I´m hoping for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hermit
post Mar 16 2005, 06:56 PM
Post #8


The King In Yellow
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,922
Joined: 26-February 05
From: JWD
Member No.: 7,121



QUOTE
I would be very happy if that streamlined some of the combat skills into a smaller group:

Small Arms (all 4 pistol categories, SMGs): Really what is the difference between an fully automatic machine pistol and a SMG besides the damage code?

Long Arms (Rifles, A.R., Shotguns): While the three of them are very different, I don't think it is unreasonable to have them all together. Most difficult part: coming up with a name for the category that sounds cool.

Heavy Weapons (Light, Medium, Heavy)

Launch Weapons (grenade, missile, motar)

That would also give characters the chance to specialize in an entire sub-category of firearms (i.e shotguns would be a specialization rather than a category). I would also break the melee weapons into three groups: edged, blunt (polearms/clubs), and whips.

Great stuff! I only disagree about the edged weapons. A Daito and a combat knife need slightly different handling. Maybe Edged: short blade, edged: long blade, and polearms should be separate cathegories?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craigpierce
post Mar 21 2005, 06:15 PM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: 25-August 04
From: Denver, CO
Member No.: 6,599



QUOTE (Dizzo Dizzman @ Mar 16 2005, 11:35 AM)
I would be very happy if that streamlined some of the combat skills into a smaller group:

Small Arms (all 4 pistol categories, SMGs): Really what is the difference between an fully automatic machine pistol and a SMG besides the damage code?

Long Arms (Rifles, A.R., Shotguns): While the three of them are very different, I don't think it is unreasonable to have them all together. Most difficult part: coming up with a name for the category that sounds cool.

Heavy Weapons (Light, Medium, Heavy)

Launch Weapons (grenade, missile, motar)

That would also give characters the chance to specialize in an entire sub-category of firearms (i.e shotguns would be a specialization rather than a category). I would also break the melee weapons into three groups: edged, blunt (polearms/clubs), and whips.

Just my thoughts, and I know they'll have no effect on anything, but it makes me feel like I'm participating in SR4. And isn't that what dumpshock is all about? :|

i for one miss the 'firearms' skill from SR2. though i do like dizzo's layout, as it does make more sense than either just having the overall 'firearms' skill or having so many skills as they do now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*
post Mar 21 2005, 07:26 PM
Post #10





Guests






Like I said before, from a skill perspective, handling even SMGs vs. MPs is different enough to warrant it IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slash_Thompson
post Mar 21 2005, 07:53 PM
Post #11


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 27-March 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 4,341



I would like to throw in a vote of 'more skills is better'.

rules complexity isn't actually increased much (if at all) by breaking skills up into subcategories:

take the old firearms rule. and the 3rd ed pistols/smgs/assault/rifles etc.
did the actual mechanic of firing a weapon become more complex? not really- firearms + a predator was now pistols + predator.

the same could be done to the existing computing skill: each of the specialisations could become a new skill without much issue, since the rules complexity isn't increased, just the 'buy-in' cost of being a well-rounded decker skills-wise.

do it to magic too? either by application or general spell-type, depends on which way you want to take the sorcery/conjuring system.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craigpierce
post Mar 21 2005, 08:08 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: 25-August 04
From: Denver, CO
Member No.: 6,599



QUOTE (Slash_Thompson)
I would like to throw in a vote of 'more skills is better'.

rules complexity isn't actually increased much (if at all) by breaking skills up into subcategories:

take the old firearms rule. and the 3rd ed pistols/smgs/assault/rifles etc.
did the actual mechanic of firing a weapon become more complex? not really- firearms + a predator was now pistols + predator.

the same could be done to the existing computing skill: each of the specialisations could become a new skill without much issue, since the rules complexity isn't increased, just the 'buy-in' cost of being a well-rounded decker skills-wise.

do it to magic too? either by application or general spell-type, depends on which way you want to take the sorcery/conjuring system.

it's a karma/creation point issue though...i'm all for the break down of skills - let's just not break them down too far. right now, i agree that there are too many firearm skills, and that you only really need the categories that dizzo suggested
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 21 2005, 09:09 PM
Post #13


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



SMGs fired from the shoulder handle very much like ARs, rifles and shotguns, and are in fact long arms by definition. That's why I rather group SMGs into the Long Arms skill (whenever fired with the stock extended, if there is a stock), whereas most small SMGs and all machine pistols fired without the stock extended would fall into the same group as all other pistols. Firing LMGs or GPMGs from the shoulder or a bipod is also very much like firing rifles, and quite unlike firing heavier weaponry such as most tripod- or vehicle-mounted machineguns, and is nothing at all like any rocket or grenade launchers -- thus machineguns fired unsupported or from a bipod should count as Long Arms, not Heavy Weapons.

"Small arms" refers to all firearms carried and used by a single person -- this includes everything from pistols to LMGs. A more correct name for the skill covering the use of pistols, machine pistols, certain kinds of SMGs in certain situations, etc. would be "Handguns".

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
Shooting rifles and shotguns are two different skills.

In SR3 canon they are, there's no reason why they'd have to be in SR4.

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
How you hold it, carry, fire it, reload it, and basically how you use it in a combat situation.

And yet you have no trouble with LMGs fired from the shoulder and HMGs fired from a tripod using the same skill, even though the two are used in very different ways in combat? Doesn't the very idea of a pintle-mounted machinegun being fired with the same skill (Gunnery) as Surface-to-Surface Missiles cause you terrible pains? What about getting past Maglocks and Electronic Warfare using the same skill (Electronics), or Biotech covering both Organ Culture & Growth and giving 1st Aid?

It's not a question if firing this kind of gun is different than firing that kind of gun. Of course it is. The question is, is firing this gun as different from firing that gun as driving a car is from driving a bike, or as different as different as tampering with a maglock is from setting up explosives with electronic detonators.

Face it: The skills covering the use of firearms are far more fragmented than any other skills in SR3 canon. With a division such as Handguns/Long Arms/Heavy Weapons/Launch Weapons they would at least be less obviously so.

Of course, if you wanted to have less generic skills, the skillset would also be more consistant if you did indeed split up all the other skills just like Firearms was split up. Basically, that'd take splitting apart all the non-Combat Active skills in SR3 by Specializations. I'm personally very much against this, because I don't like the idea of likely more than 50 active skills for any generalist-type of character. I'm also quite confident that the game designers would never do this.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Mar 21 2005, 09:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Mar 22 2005, 01:25 AM
Post #14


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
Like I said before, from a skill perspective, handling even SMGs vs. MPs is different enough to warrant it IMO.

But nowhere near the same as the difference between Athletics and Car B/R, or Biotech and Computers, which is basically how it is reflected in SR3.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*
post Mar 22 2005, 01:26 AM
Post #15





Guests






Oh, well. The same can be said about any Active Skill and its B/R eqv.

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
How you hold it, carry, fire it, reload it, and basically how you use it in a combat situation.

And yet you have no trouble with LMGs fired from the shoulder and HMGs fired from a tripod using the same skill, even though the two are used in very different ways in combat?

You're right. They should break up the heavy weapon skills, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 22 2005, 06:36 AM
Post #16


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I take it, then, that you think there should be hundreds of separate active skills? That would at least make the firearm skills more logical, even though it'd make it character generation a bit too much of a hassle for my tastes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Mar 22 2005, 07:01 AM
Post #17


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
I take it, then, that you think there should be hundreds of separate active skills? That would at least make the firearm skills more logical, even though it'd make it character generation a bit too much of a hassle for my tastes.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of the older way of handling skills. You have a base skill representing general knowledge, then a concentration on a tigher group of skills within that base skill, and finally a specialization for one specific use of that skill.

If I changed anything for the better (within the current system), it would be that the default TN for any action is based upon which set of those skills you were using. Base (Firearms) TN 6, Concentraiton (Heavy Pistols) TN 5, Specialization (Ares Predator) TN 4. Defaulting penalties would be revamped as well. Or, more correctly, using a default TN of 6 for all actions and a -1 bonus for Concentrations and -2 for Specializations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DrJest
post Mar 22 2005, 08:45 AM
Post #18


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722



That's not a bad idea. The TN may be a little harsh, but not by more than 1 point.

Oh, and nice to see you back Funk - people were wondering where you went :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slash_Thompson
post Mar 22 2005, 10:39 AM
Post #19


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 27-March 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 4,341



QUOTE (archimagus)
it's a karma/creation point issue though...i'm all for the break down of skills - let's just not break them down too far. right now, i agree that there are too many firearm skills, and that you only really need the categories that dizzo suggested


I agree with you that it would be great if they cut the number of firearms type skills down to four or five instead of the (eleven?, don't have books on hand) that they have now.

I just think that they should break up a few of the other 'umbrella skills' too. I mean, general computer use and computer programming are really vastly different in the world of point-click interfaces. (it wasn't as different in the early-mid 80's when most UI's were command line) I think it would be reasonable to have someone be 'very good' at exploiting hosts with pre-cooked programs, but not be capable of programming their own.

same with Sorcery- right now, every magic character is equally as good at, say: casting and defense... split it up too. simplifies introducing players also- since alot of the time there is confusion stemming from some skills (sorcery, computing) doing six things, while most skills (car, pistols, etc) only do one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Mar 22 2005, 11:04 AM
Post #20


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



I don't think I've ever heard of confusion coming from a skill covering lots of things. I have no idea how more specific skills "simplifies" anything at all, especially character creation for new players.

The confusion tends to come from the ultra-absurdly-specific skills not covering multiple tasks, not the other way around. I've been playing SR since it came out, and I still get confused as to why there's "Electronics" and "Electonics B/R."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Mar 22 2005, 02:24 PM
Post #21


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



I agree that there is no need for both Electronics and Electronics B/R, but I have preached that subject before.

Another thing I have always advocated is divorcing Spell Defence entirely from Sorcery. Making it independant, and bringing that skill in line with all the others in regards to its utilization would be a Good Thing™.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slash_Thompson
post Mar 22 2005, 05:36 PM
Post #22


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 27-March 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 4,341



QUOTE (Critias)
I don't think I've ever heard of confusion coming from a skill covering lots of things. I have no idea how more specific skills "simplifies" anything at all, especially character creation for new players.


the confusion stems most from Sorcery, and the related 'skill dice allocation' rules that were apparently included purely for balance (i.e. must allocate x dice to cast, y to drain, z to defense, and x+y+z <= skill) it's the only skill in the game I'm aware of that does this. since you have to split the dice all the time anyway, why not have seperate skills? (less fluidity- increase the spell pool then, and axe defense as skill related or something.) it's complex. and there's no real simple solution that doesn't rework alot of the basic assumptions behind the 'balance' of the magic system.


and yes, electronics and Electronics B/R doesn't make much sense. combine them, maybe look over the whole b/r system for a possible rework. I find it's mostly under-utilized. might just be my games though.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GunnerJ
post Mar 22 2005, 05:41 PM
Post #23


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 25-May 03
Member No.: 4,634



I, as a long-time mage twink, would hate to see Sorcery diversified. How would I be able to get 6 dice of Spell Defense at all times without interfering with my spellcasting by taking Sorcery 5 at chargen and then a three-karma specialization in Spell Defense after the first run?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CradleWorm
post Mar 22 2005, 07:06 PM
Post #24


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 22-March 05
From: Milwaukee
Member No.: 7,210



Sorcery is already broken up by the requirement to know spells. If you want to spread sorcery out across several skills, you'd have to allow mages to cast any spell from that area. Since the samurai can fire any assault rifle with his assault rifle skill, the mage should be able to cast any combat spell with his combat sorcery skill.

Its balanced as it is, could you shuffle things around and maintain a balance? Sure... but why bother.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Mar 22 2005, 07:32 PM
Post #25


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



that's a good point Cradle. Personally I don't think spells are balanced as is, they cost too much karma to upgrade.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 05:11 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.