IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Skills, Thoughts on how they might change?
GrinderTheTroll
post Mar 16 2005, 06:05 PM
Post #1


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



So one of the biggest beefs I think many people have expressed is the number of Skills required to use weapons. My idea is something like this:

In the interest of "streamlining" I venture a guess SR4 might bring back more general skills like "Firearms" as opposed to dozen skills it represents in SR3. Maybe choosing "profficiencies" like "Pistols" or "Rifles" would simple remove a generically imposed penalty or something for just using "Firearms". It's sorta like defaulting except you don't need to spend a dozen extra skill points on buying the skill, instead spending points to "buy down" the generic penalty imposed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Pthgar
post Mar 16 2005, 06:01 PM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 619
Joined: 27-May 03
From: Detroit
Member No.: 4,642



Streamlining may not involve making everything simpler, it may mean conforming everything to one standard or system. If that's the case, I could see the skill system getting more diverse but really becoming the core of all tests.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Mar 16 2005, 06:15 PM
Post #3


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Pthgar)
Streamlining may not involve making everything simpler, it may mean conforming everything to one standard or system. If that's the case, I could see the skill system getting more diverse but really becoming the core of all tests.

Aren't skills the core of all tests now? I am not sure I follow that part.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toa
post Mar 16 2005, 06:14 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 112
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Württemberg, AGS
Member No.: 2,068



I hope the importance of attributes increases. Like adding half of the related attribute as bonus to the skill value. Of course there should be a skill cap then, in order to keep dice pool sizes manageable. And Karma costs wouldn't have to be calculated relatively anymore, since the importance of attributes is already reflected.

Which reminds me... will we keep Combat Pool et al? Questions over questions... where's that fragging devblog?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pthgar
post Mar 16 2005, 06:14 PM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 619
Joined: 27-May 03
From: Detroit
Member No.: 4,642



I mispoke, skills would be just about the sole difference between character "classes." Skills would determine more of the outcome than equipment (Decks and Electronics) and Force (Magic).

For example, with a spell there basically is no force. The level of damage or degree of transformation or reality of illusion is totally based on number of successes.

With Decking you would basically be running the matrix "naked." "Manipulating code with raw skill alone."

Having incredible combat skills would make you a street sam.

Cyberware and equipment would become very secondary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zen Shooter01
post Mar 16 2005, 11:28 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 932
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Orlando, Florida
Member No.: 1,042



There's no problem with the number of weapon skills, because they default to each other at only a +2 modifier. If you have SMGs 6, you'll do okay with Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns, Assault Rifles, Laser Weapons...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Mar 16 2005, 11:33 PM
Post #7


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



Biggest problem with skills was if you played SR2 then SR3.

In SR2 you could have "Firearms" that allowed you pick-up most weapons (Assault Rifles, SMG, pistol, etc) and shoot it with no penalty since you weren't defaulting.

This means if you spend the same amount of skill points on getting say, 5 level 5 weapon skills in SR3, that would be 25 skill points at chargen, opposed to only 5 skill points (Firearms 5) in SR2.

My speculation was basically a hybrid of SR2 and SR3: Conservation of skill points at chargen (SR2), using defaulting penalties (SR3) for "non-proficient" sub-skills (SR4?).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adarael
post Mar 16 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #8


Deus Absconditus
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,742
Joined: 1-September 03
From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS
Member No.: 5,566



One major gripe?

Assault Rifles and Rifles should be the same skill. If you can shoot an AR-15 well, and abstract that skill into shooting all SA/BR/FA rifles well, there's no reason a level-action winchester should be totally foreign to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 17 2005, 12:25 AM
Post #9


Great Dragon
*********

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



Want a bigger stick to beat that equine carcass with?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Mar 17 2005, 12:49 AM
Post #10


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

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



thinking along a different line, i hope to see attributes have a bigger impact on skills. a guy with 6 Qui and Pistols 1 ought to be a significantly better shooter than a guy with 3 Qui and Pistols 1. there's the slightly higher combat pool, i guess, but what about, say, Pistols B/R?

here's an idea: get rid of defaulting. or, rather, change defaulting completely, so that it's a more integral part of the system. for instance, attributes might add 1/3 their value, rounded down, to the dice rolled on any skill they're linked to. 9 Str gives you +3 dice for Edged Weapon rolls. if you don't have Edged weapons, you only get those 3 dice (no modifiers). or, maybe, make attributes rollable like complimentary skills, though that seems kinda bulky to use on every roll.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 17 2005, 12:55 AM
Post #11


Great Dragon
*********

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



QUOTE (mfb)
a guy with 6 Qui and Pistols 4 ought to be a significantly better shooter than a guy with 3 Qui and Pistols 4.

The latter guy has (in SR3) either spent 1 point more in chargen to get the skill, or 2 more karma if he got the skill in-game. It's a slightly different way of handling the problem -- you have to pay more to become equally good instead of paying the same amount and becoming slightly worse. Although this doesn't really help when comparing a QUI 9/Pistols 4 and a QUI 4/Pistols 4, I think using both an increasing Karma costs rule and some kind of linked attr modifiers for skill use might be a bit too much.

QUOTE (mfb)
here's an idea: get rid of defaulting. or, rather, change defaulting completely, so that it's a more integral part of the system. for instance, attributes might add 1/3 their value, rounded down, to the dice rolled on any skill they're linked to. 9 Str gives you +3 dice for Edged Weapon rolls. if you don't have Edged weapons, you only get those 3 dice (no modifiers).

That looks oddly appealing. One problem, though, is what you'd do with closely related skills -- would you simply get rid of defaulting between skills? Or use different rules for that?

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Mar 17 2005, 12:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Mar 17 2005, 02:01 AM
Post #12


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

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



maybe defaulting to a related skill lets you roll half of that skill's dice? the pool modifiers would still apply--default to skill, half pool; default to specialization, 1/4 pool; default to attribute, no pool.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 4th August 2025 - 11:21 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.