TJ: Disagree... having the skill go that high and eliminating all the pesky equipment dice in many cases makes the char more skill dependent. This is *NOT* one of the things SR5 got wrong.

Also it gets rid of the gods out of the gate problem. Where everyone comes out of the gate with 6's in their best stuff and little to no room to improve except magical types who can initiate/submerge and continue to sink karma.

Further... skill ranks when from 6->12 max... but defense dice got essentially doubled as well as you're rolling against 2 attributes... so to be as deadly as you were in SR4 you pretty much need the super high skill. (my combat mage has a 15'ish dice pool (21+) with full defense. Touch of edge and you pretty much need a prime runner or a hail of bullets to tag him... which is good since combat spells are nowhere near as effective as before! His role seems to be more of look a mage... geek it... dodge monkey while the gunbunnies clean up the mess).


Anyhow I did a very quick look into the SR5 book and skimmed to the Street Sam.
It shows the augmented skills from the reflex recorder in the augmented form Blades 5(6), Longarms 3(4), Sneaking 2(3).

The Kyra example doesn't help at all... it shows pistols 3 and imp ability (pistols) as separate line items (p92).

And the Brawling Adept seems critically flawed as if whoever wrote it up didn't know how to make a character. (Am I wrong or do I see both Priority B Attributes and Priority B skills on that char?, Pri C is obviously Mag (Adept 4), and Pri D Hum(3 , 2+2==4 edg, 4+1==5mag). Resources seem Pri E + a touch of karma.


Overall I disagree completely with the OP. The absence of a general rule regarding augmented skill caps does not render the specific rule under Improved Ability dead letter.

No worries.
No problems with Skill dependent Skills on my part. Mine were pretty much always that way in SR4, though. So it is not a change for me. But then, most of my character's DP's were in the 8-15 range. So...

And I never had a God out of the Gate issue with any of my characters because, again, I seem to understand that no runner should ever be the best of the best of the best out of the gate.
My Professional Characters primary skills started at 3 or 4 for their focus (Not 5's or 6). I ALWAYS have characters with room to grow both in Breadth and Depth.
I say it again... Just because you CAN start out with 5's or 6's does not mean you SHOULD start out with 5's or 6's - or heaven forbid a 7 (Obviously in SR4A).

I think the expansion of skills was a bad choice. In SR4A, we had 9 discreet rankings of skill (with up to an additional 3 for Adepts). MORE than enough room to provide difference in capability (as opposed to the 15 ranks, plus additional 6 for adepts of SR5). I also think that going to a 2 Stat defense was a poor design choice as well (but was definitely needed when expanding Skills to 12/13).

The choices you or any other single person makes are not in any way basis on which to judge a system, though. There's a whole wide range of players and player behaviour the system has to support, and players who aim for the best they can get in their specialty (both with and without min-maxing) are part of that range.

I generally judge a system based upon its assumed level of play. Opposition in SR4A generally has pools in the 8-16 DP range, with Elite Troops throwing ~17 Attack Dice. As a result, I do not generally make character that blow that out of the water at character inception. In fact, I expect that the Red Samurai and Tir Ghosts in the book are to be antagonists, and as such do not generate characters that are capable of slaying a team of them in a single pass.

Those who routinely shoot to break those assumptions are either not understanding the genre, or they do not want to lose. Both interfere with a story more often than not. (Assumptions I know)
Can you start a character out with 25 Attack Dice and 40 Soak Dice? Sure. Should you? No, not in my opinion.

I think a game needs to have its limitations hardwired into the rules, not as something that prospective players need to be able to intuit somehow. But while SR4 would let you start out nearly the best at a single skill, that hardly made you the best in the world. There were usually a few elusive dice to chase even for a maxed-out skill, and there were also other areas in the character's specialty to improve, and weak areas to shore up.

That said, I do still like SR5's higher spread of skills. To be frank, the skill descriptions in SR4 were jarringly dis-congruent with the minimal difference made by a single die. As I hear more about the SR5 mechanics, though, I wonder if they did a good job balancing the new range of skill ratings. In SR3, skills were uncapped, but a skill of 6 was still badass, and skills above 8 were exceedingly rare. I worry that SR5 may have balanced the outlier skills of 12 at the expense of making starting skills ineffective.

And I am still boggled that they apparently don't mention augmented skills anywhere in the skills section!

Yeah, I can see that.
Though in reality, the difference from No Skill to Best Skill is still only 4 average Successes (other stats being equal, of course). So, really, not that big of a difference either.

My point, TJ, is that a system simply cannot be built assuming everyone keeps to that idea.

Unless of course the system specifically limits you to that level at character generation like, say, SR5.

This is just not true.



This is even more not true.

I can understand that many people WANT it to be RAW, but it simply is not. I doublechecked everything including errata, there is no such rule in SR5, and you should accept it, since there are people who check forums if they ask themselfes the same question as i did.

And maybe our understandings of how magic works in shadowrun are different but for me there is no logical relationship between adepts beeing superhuman (in wich i totally agree) and them by default beeing better than the rest.

MUNDANE Usain Bolt --> Athletics (Running) 13(15)
ADEPT other Jamaikan Sprinter --> Athletics (Running) 10(12) + 3 levels of imp ability

Mundane Usain Bolt had to give a lot more karma(=time) to be best of the best while adept-sprinter reaches that goal much earlier, and than puts the other karma(=time) to master another disipline like e.g. heavy weapons what definitely makes him look superhuman because he is the fastes shooter you have ever seen (or the best shooting sprinter anyone has ever seen). Your way of thinking of it, implements that there is not a single ability in wich a mundane could beat an adept and i dont think/ like that way. Bye bye Cpt. Chaos, FastJack and all the other mundane trash that every Adept with a hackingskill of 18 just could smile of.

And even if this is not how it works and my thinking of it is bulldrek, RAW is stil proving me right.

Sry for crappy english, keep the typos

CitM:
The problem is that the RAW is ambiguous. You cannot use it to conclusively say either side is right or wrong... hence why I went to try and look for intent (how did the guys who made the example chars do it). By looking for their own character examples. You keep saying by strict RAW... but by strict RAW anyone can simply point to the specific rules for Improved ability. Both rules are equally valid... only one is very specific... and generally the specific rule overrides the general rule if there is a conflict. (it establishes an exception).

By the same token though people can't say you're wrong either. Hence ambiguous. You have two rules in conflict with each other. The only way to clarify would be an official FAQ or errata. (A FAQ's purpose is to clarify grey areas without changing the rules text... errata rewrites things).


Other problems which come out are that through cyber... dice pools can be enhanced directly. Adepts cannot do this without sacrificing magic. Hence why some others have come out and said there's a balance problem with adepts if it were to function as you suggest.

EG: Synthacardium (3).... +3 to all your athletics skills like running... so right there the street sam can get 12 (+2) (+3). That's only in the base book.... given time more will appear just as they did in augmentation in SR4. That used to be one of the 'hacking' tricks... there were a ton of things which gave dice pool bonuses to all 'logic linked skills' and you'd stack them up.



Also your notation syntax is off... a specialization is done as a "(+2)". The plus sign shows that it is a specialization and not an augmented skill. Look at the characters with reflex recorders in the book (which also gives a skill rank just like improved ability)... The street sam in the core book is an example, the only one with a reflex recorder.

It has Reflex Recorder [Blades, Longarms, Sneaking, Unarmed Combat].
"Blades 5(6)", "Longarms 3(4)", "Sneaking 2(3)", and "Unarmed Combat 2(3)".

Look at the Sprawl Ganger (or some of the others with specializations noted).
"Etiquette (Street) 2(+2)"

Someone with both an augment and a specialization would be
"Skillname (Specialization) 3(4) (+2)"



Anyone:
Is it just me or is the brawling adept somehow fubared? I can't make the math jibe. (appears to be missing a priority A)
Has anyone gone through all the book examples and rebuilt them as a rules exercise to make sure they're square?

Yeah, I know...
But to me, at least, the intent is pretty clear.

Dont think so. As i pointed out earlier in the thread the so called "specific rule" for imp ability does not negate the basic rule that skills are capped at 12. It just gives another restriction. Going by your logic i could also ignore the fact that the augmented max for attributes is natural max +4. Id just say "but specific rule muscletoner/-augmentation says its maxrating +4 and specific rule increased attribute say its +rating and maxrating is magic so id like to have +10 agi/ str."



I dont get why synthacardium and tailored pheromones are not just improving ability. Would solve so many problems. I just think it also was copypasted from sr4. But as a matter of fact adepts are able to get some ware, while mundane cant get the qi-power.



Yep, missed that - although it was not neccessary to point out what i meant.

If a system assumes a given level of play, it should either be unequivocally stated, or hardwired into the rules. A system is poorly designed if it depends on someone looking through the rules and thinking "Looks like I can get 20 dice for this, but gee, these simplified archetypes and generic mooks don't have 20 dice. I guess maybe I should limit myself to 16 dice, even though the rules, which explicitly forbid or limit a kajillion other things, let me do that without taking any significant hits to my character's overall versatility." This is especially true in a game like Shadowrun - you are playing elite professional criminal specialists, in a world where magic and technology can literally make people superhuman.

It depends on your playstyle, too. If your characters tend to be ex-corporate troubleshooters, mercenaries, bounty hunters, or underworld enforcers, then you will tend to make more powerful characters than someone whose characters tend to be gangers clawing their way up from the Barrens, embittered alcoholic ex-cops, and corporate wageslaves suddenly finding themselves out of their comfortable enclave. The rules as written support both playstyles, although individual groups might have more specific power levels.

It is best to let people know what the group's level is ahead of time. Just a quick synopsis of the game like "You guys are a step above street scum, looking to move up to runner level. 320 build points, Availability capped at 10, Magic or Resonance capped at 4, skills one 5 or two 4's and 3's for everything else, and normal metatypes only. Try to keep dice pools 15 or under, be sure you have at least minimal social and stealth skills, and while you get Charisma x 2 in free contacts, I recommend buying a few more, since contacts will be important in this game." Much better than letting someone waste his time creating a character, then using the sheet as a "munchkin" litmus test.

Or you could just run SR5, where all characters suck (although I am not sure about that - the SR5 cage fight thread seemed to have some badasses in it - so again, the GM needs to set more specific expectations).

No, because you're drawing a false analogy. You're also being pedantic.

The rule you're citing is completely silent on the matter of improved ability/reflex recorders/etc.
You cannot conclusively say that A & B both apply, or that B modifies A.
I've read all your arguments. Your logic doesn't PROVE... that's the problem. Ambiguous.
My logic can't prove it either. I can only search for intent (RAI)... because the RAW is in this case insufficient.

That's a problem I've noticed a lot of posters have issues with... that the book may leave many things undefined. This was true in 4th as well... as the book as ambiguous on many points where the GM could make life living hell for a rules lawyer player while still staying within the letter of the rules.



The rule regarding augmented attribute maximums is quite specific... from any and all sources cannot exceed more than +4 over your base attribute.

"First, when purchasing augmentations such as cyberware and bioware, each attribute rating (Mental and Physical) can only receive an augmentation bonus of up to +4."

"Such as" is not an exhaustive list, it's an exemplary list. It provides some examples, but does not list everything.

Further the magic section makes regular reference to the 'Augmented maximums' still being in effect.

Increased Ability makes no such reference to any maximum being in effect except for it's own.


The SR5 book right now is still a mess... because the editors didn't edit. Mr Hardy didn't keep his freelancers in check. And they spent more time in layout making it look nice and glossy than actually fixing the text. Only now that they're getting stuff ready for a 3rd printing has an errata document actually come out.

Except there is a specific rule in that case for augmented attributes, there is no rule one way or the other for augmented skills so when skills get augmented it is unclear and not RAW that it stops at 12(13). The specific rule for improved skill is you CAN take it to current skill level x1.5, it gives no max so if anything the RAW is more explicit in that it can go past 12. As even if you have a 12 rating you can take 6 levels in it. There is no limit put in the game, there is no limit that skills can't be augmented past 12.

Anyways it looks like Falconer answered this already and I'm getting nijaed.

The skill Rating is a numerical value ranging from 1,
representing the most rudimentary skill, to 12 (or 13 with
the Aptitude quality) representing the height of sentient
achievement.

12-13 APEX
You have reached the pinnacle of mortal achievement. This
expertise represents the top 0.00001% of all practitioners in
known history. The very highest rating, 13, can only be reached
with the Aptitude quality (p. 72).

So if you say "there is no limit that skills cant be augmented past 12" what exactly do you think does "The very highest rating, 13, can only be reached
with the Aptitude quality (p. 72)." mean? This is no interpretation of mine, this is RAW. 13 can ONLY be reached with aptitude. This statement includes that NOTHING can reach 13. And since you cant reach 13, you barely would reach 18.

For me this is more than clear, and i think people should finaly stop dreaming.

Because that is only talking about the skill chapter, it in no way references how things outside of the skil chapter effect it.

"You need to know the skill in order to buy this
power for it, and you can’t buy it for skill groups. The maximum
improvement possible is your current skill level x 1.5
(rounded up).


So if my skill is 12 my max rating is 6. It is a specific rule, it does not say it can exceed the natrual max it doesn't say it can't. But the fact is if I have a skill rating of 12 the power says I can take up to 6 levels in it. Under your interpretation you say the general rule that we cap at 12 overrides the specific rule that I can take up to my skill x1.5. The max rating is not 1.5 or a max skill of 12 whichever comes first, it is 1.5. but hey if you want to delude yourself go for it.

The issue isn't exactly the "Gods out of the Gate" situation. That was more caused by the ease of dice pool inflation in SR4.5, and not the skill rankings themselves. For example, let's look a a pornomancer. He has skill 6, and a dice pool of 52. If he only had a skill of 4, he'd lose... two dice. For a pool of 50. Whoop de fragging do.

The bigger issue was that the skill rankings were far too compacted. The difference between average skill (3) and world-class skill (6) was one success, on average. Three dice really does not adequately model the difference between the two extremes. So the skill levels did need to be spaced out more. Now, skill 3 is still average, but world class is 12 or 13. That's about ten dice, which is a significant difference.

CitM, you'd get a better reaction if your tone wasn't so combative, but then again this is Dumpshock, so... meh.

But Falconer and Shinobi... the rules, the literal words that are on the page, are clear and do not say what you think they say.

One:If there exists any exception to this rule for player characters, please cite your page number and where exactly you found it. Please note Dracoforms are NPCs, and as such are not subject to this rule. It applies during character creation, it applies after character creation, it applies if you choose Improved Ability, it applies if you don't choose Improved Ability. Hell, it even applies if I spread peanut butter on my eyes and do the funky chicken, even though it never says it applies if I spread peanut butter on my eyes and do the funky chicken. This is because you need an affirmative exception to this rule in order to qualify as an exception. If it doesn't specifically say it doesn't apply, it applies.

Two:Please note it says "increases the Rating." If the skill was a 4, buying one level in Improved Ability means the skill is now at a rating of 5, not 4+1. If it was 4+1, the power would state that for each level of the power, it would increase the dice pool when using the specific skill by the level of the power. It doesn't, it directly modifies the Rating of the skill. If it created a "modified skill rating" like it did in SR4, it would specifically state that, but it's not even like the power was copy/pasted from the previous edition without any thought. There was a conscious decision to change the power as written from the previous edition and include the specific rule that showed up.

The limit in Improved Ability is a limit for the levels you can take for that specific power, not on the rating of the skill. The levels of the power are not equivilent to the rating of the skill and as such are two different things with two different rules limiting their acquisition. Additionally, you still have the above limit on all skill ratings that applies at the same time as the limit on the levels you can take of Improved Ability. You can have bought a skill of 10 and two levels of improved ability, or you can have two levels in the skill and, because the limit on the power is recursive, you can have 10 levels in improved ability. But under no circumstances can you have a skill of 10 and 5 levels of improved ability or a skill of 5 and 10 levels of improved ability, because that would make the rating of the skill itself a 15. Which is over the rule on page 129 and there is nothing that says that limit ever goes away under any circumstance.

Is this intended? Probably not. Does that matter? Not in the slightest. Until such time as either CGL or Missions (which is the only time RAW actually matters) puts forth an errata, this is RAW. If you want to change it for your personal table to work like you obviously want it to work, do it. I personally am going to use it as a dice pool modifier and not a direct modification of the skill rating itself, but I'm also not going to attempt to say that the words on the page say something other than what they say.

Further, to address the "Gods out of the Gate" situation:This establishes that spending skill points in character creation specifically increases the skill rating equal to the points spent on the skill, which, if your remember from above, is also what Improved Ability does. And moving further on that same page, skipping the skill group rules, gets us to:
In addition to once again reiterating that the skill cap is 12/13 at all times after character generation, during character creation you are limited to a skill of 6. Which according to the above paragraph, means a skill rating of 6.

In character creation, you cannot exceed a skill rating of 6 and it doesn't matter how you get to a skill rating of 6. If you spend 6 skill points and then buy even a single level of Improved Ability during character creation (not counting a focus), means that the skill is now above the skill rating limit in character creation (without the Aptitude quality) as Improved Ability directly modifies the skill rating itself, and does not either create a bonus to the roll, or as in SR4, create a 'modified skill rating'.

Post character creation, a player can take any skill at 2 or higher directly to the cap of 12/13 due to how the limit on Improved Ability is recursively worded, but during character creation you are limited to a skill rating of 6, no matter if you get there through skill points or the Improved Ability power (or for that matter, the Reflex Recorder). Whether you chose to use these rules or not, these are the Rules As Written, and if you choose not to use the Rules As Written, that is by definition, a house rule. Which, again, is totally fine. But disagreeing with what the literal words on the page say doesn't change what is actually written on that page.

First of all, nice post - where is the "like" button?

Secondly, its not my attention to be offensive or insulting, but since i am pointing this out for at least 3 months and people still just say "its your interpretation of the rules" i maybe got angry for no reason. So, .. apologies for that one.
Additionaly my english is not that good, so half of the words come out of a dictionary and maybe dont "strike the right note" (<< like this one) . Sorry for that either.



Same counts for you. I dont want it to be that way, but that does not change how it actually is. And even if you say that a hundred times, it still wont be true.

Ahh, no worries I'm sure you speak/write english a thousand times better than I could speak of your language. But yeah, those dictionaries don't do well with connotations (the implied connections and unstated meanings of words that affect the tone of what you are writing).

Tjn:
You can't make any such claim though. You completely miss the point of the word 'ambiguous' in your own 'combativeness' (hey it's dumpshock, I have thick skin unlike some posters who take any criticism as a personal insult.. especially when they build their entire argument on their own authority/expertise). You also completely fail to establish anything stating that augmented skills do not exist... yet I can point at many things in the book which point that they do exist. You can point me no rule establishing a limit on an augmented skill.

Neither rule references the other to define their interaction. Hence why I said it was ambiguous before and neither side could make a good argument.. reading further though. I now go with you're dead wrong. The book does show the existence of augmented skills and even mentions them with a quick nod in step 8. In the absence of a general rule limiting them (as is the case with attributes), the specific rules of each augment hold sway as specific rules. A rule establishing a 'natural' limit on skills is no different than the rule establishing a 'natural' limit on attributes by metatype.

A. Either skill augmentes are subject to the cap as you claim (but cannot prove! show me the text.. it does not exist)
B. Or they are not and are governed by other limitations (the specific limitations of whatever is augmenting the skill)
C. The book has examples of characters with augmented skills in it, in the augmented format. So they do exist.

So no, I'm switching my argument from ambiguous to you're flat out wrong here.
1. The RAW seems to point very conclusively to augmented skills do exist. "... Since many of these are adjusted by augmentations. It is best to wait until all decisions have been made on skills and attributes before making these calculations." (step 8. final calculations... when you adjust the sheet with numbers in parenthesis to reflect augmentations)
2. They are defined by their specific rules augmenting instead of an overarching general rule/limit. (reflex record has it's own rule, improved ability has it's own self-contained rule)
3. There is no rule establishing any limit on augmented skill values in general as there is for augmented attributes.
4. Your argument is no different than saying a human can't go over 1-6 because buying the 'base ranks' is limited to 1-6 for a normal human barring exceptional attribute. That in the absence of a rule establishing an upper cap on augmentations... I could only buy muscle toner up to my natural maximum. (instead of the toner and other augments being limited by only their upper ratings).
5. In fact, "Augmented attribute max" is only ever referred to in the magic section and otherwise left undefined. You have to hunt for the 'buying equipment' section of chargen to find anything that might hint at what it actually is and it uses different wording. Yet somehow attributes are fine to be augmented but skills aren't.
6. There are non-magical means to enhance dice pools of specific skills by paying essence. You introduce an adept balance problem with this interpretation
7. You leave many other items completely undefined... EG: if it directly adds to skill, how much does it cost to learn a new rank of the skill. 4(6)... 10 or 14 karma.
8. At the end of the day, your reading causes more problems than it solves. Occam's razor. Simplest solution is generally the correct one.

The problem is that we have clear intent (at least in the case of premade characters with reflex recorders) that there is an augmented skilll value in the same vein as augmented attribute value. There is RAW in step 8 which also describes their existence but establishes no limit. Unlike augmented attributes there is no provision anywhere in the book capping augmented skills, only augmented attributes.

So apparently there is a limit on the number of times a post can quote someone... so I have to break this up to fully address Falconer. I apologize for the text blocks and the spam; I'm unsure how to make it easier on the eyes, but I felt it was important to address the argument in its entirety.

I make no claim other than there are words that are in the book and there is no instance within this book that contradicts or says that those words don't apply.
Just because you say it's ambiguous doesn't mean it is. The words are there. Skill ratings are a thing. You can increase this skill rating in four ways: skill points from character creation, spending karma, Improved Ability, or Reflex Recorders. No matter how you get these ratings, you can only have so many ratings in a skill at one time, and this limit on skill ratings is different in character creation (6/7) versus after character creation (12/13).
I've tried to be accommodating of logical arguments; I apologize if you took my dismissal of non-logical arguments as combative, but this is Dumpshock, so I have no illusions. However if you want to be passive-aggressive, go right ahead. I've gone my rounds with Frank; my skin is thick enough.
Can you point out where in the book there is ever such a thing as "augmented skills?" I just did a find function of the word "augment." That word is in there a lot, but not once is there any such thing as an augmented skill. The closest thing is the reference you made on page 100. Since you provided the quote out of context, let me quote it:The things that are adjusted by augmentations are those several derived mechanics in the preceding sentence. The one you failed to quote. Which really makes it look like you are trying to be disingenuous. There is nothing about "augmented skills." Nothing. It doesn't exist. There are augmented attributes, there is augmented reality, there are augments themselves, and there is the use of the word augment meaning to change something, but there is nothing about augmented skills as a thing that exists. Do a Ctrl-F for "augmented skill." You won't find it.
It doesn't have to. If it doesn't mention an exception, the rule still applies.
Just because you say it's something does not make it so.
See above. If you believe there is actually a thing called "augmented skills" in SR5, you are deluded because it is not in the book
Since "augmented skills" do not exist as a thing in which to limit, there is no such rule to limit the thing that does not exist. However there are two rules limiting Skill ratings; one that applies in character creation, and the other that applies after.
At least we can agree on that sentence. But you don't seem to apply it fully: there is a specific rule that Improved Ability and Reflex Recorders increase the rating of each skill. However you seem to forget that this rating is still limited by the general rule for all skills.

Yes it is, because "augmented attributes" are a thing, whereas there exists no such thing as an "augmented skill." Skills can be augmented in the plain usage of the term, i.e. they have been changed by a separate effect, but there is no such stat as an "augmented skill."
skill augments (as in the things that change skills) increase the rating of that skill. Ratings of skills are limited as put down on laid out on both page 88 and page 129, as set out previous. This rule does not need to effect the augmentations themselves because it puts a cap on their effective change. The cap doesn't care how you get there, just that you can't go past it.
These specific limitations are not limitations on "augmented skills" because that does not exist as a thing. Instead the "restriction" in Improved Ability restricts the level of Improved Ability available to buy. That's it. It doesn't give a rat's ass about the skill other than to be used in the determination of the cap on Improved Ability.
Maybe they are the only evidence in the entire book of "augmented skills," maybe the writer wanted to make it clear what skill points were spent, or maybe they were made prior to the rules being finalized like explained in the current thread on this very forum: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=40239 Short answer? Never believe that the example characters are rules legal.
And you're still just as mistaken as you were before.

See above for how this disingenuous point has been taken out of context
Again, the specific rule does not comment on a limit on the skill rating, it instead limits the level of Improved Ability you can take. These are not the same thing, quit conflating them.
That's because augmented attributes are a thing, they exist and therefore need a limit. Augmented Skills on the other hand do not exist, therefore there is no need to make a rule to limit something that does not exist.
Again, quit conflating attributes and skills. Different things have different rules. Skill ratings have a limit. Imp Ability improves that skill rating but says nothing about exceeding that skill rating limit, therefore the limit still applies.
When discussing attributes, during character creation, the book is very careful to state: "Characters at character creation may only have 1 Mental or Physical attribute at their natural maximum limit;" (Emphasis added). Note it makes a distinction with the word natural. There is no such distinction under the skills entry. This is common place throughout the book.

I don't care about balance problems, I care what it says in the book. If I feel there's a balance problem, I correct it with a house rule... not to argue that there is no balance problem because the book doesn't say what it does.
The cost in karma is new rating times two. If you spend 4 skill points on a skill, buy 2 levels of Improved Ability, the skill rating is a 6. Therefore the new rating to be acquired is a 7. 7 times 2 equals 14. Therefore it costs 14 karma to improve the rating of that particular skill.
That saying... it doesn't mean what you think it means. What Occam's razor stands for is that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is generally the one that should be used. I have no assumptions, I only point out what the book says. The simple fact that you argue that an what I am pointing out from the book's own words causes more problems and therefore should be discounted is an assumption. Your argument is invalid.
No, the problem here is you desperately want to inject a new thing, "augmented skills," into a text where they do not exist. The premade characters have problems and cannot be relied upon to be accurate and rules legal. The RAW in step 8 refers to the derived mechanics in the preceeding sentence (which you forgot to include) and not to this mythical "augmented skills." And because "augmented skills" are not a Thing, there can be no rule to limit that which does not exist.

I agree with all of what tjn is saying. This is far from being the first time that the rules are annoyingly flawed in SR5, yet clear when looking at RAW objectively. There should be a thing called augmented skill rating, or alternatively improved ab and skill reflexes should be dice pool enhancements, but sadly this is not the way it's written.


I'd also like to emphasize this point. I have gone through all the pre-made characters (and I post about this in the quoted thread), and most of them have mistakes in them. Some have very important mistakes. Not to mention that a skill which has its rating improved seperately from spending skill points in it should be identified so for clarity regardless of whether augmented skills exist.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of us come from previous editions, and measure the new rules against the way things were done in previous editions. Especially things like augmented skills, which were handed similarly even in the vastly different 3rd and 4th editions. When we see an omission like that, our first reaction is to conclude that the rules for augmented skills were not copypasted over in yet another editorial error.

I agree the RAW does lean towards an absolute cap of 12(13), whether that was intended or not (I'm voting not), because while specific rules can override general ones (for example, wired reflexes and reaction enhancers with wireless turned on can go over the augmented cap for Reaction), they don't explicitly contradict the general rule when talking about adept improved ability. SR4 was a lot more clear about modified skill ratings - yet another reason not to switch, I guess.

tjn:
Actually in that flood of texts... you missed 3 major points.

One your 'out of context' is not out of context.

It specifically mentions to make final adjustments to the character sheet. Adjusting attributes, skills, and derived attributed with modified/augmented values. There would be no reason to do this if things did not somehow augment skills.

You completely ignore that the street sam has clearly augmented skills in his stat block.

Therefore. Augmented skills do exist in the SR5 core rulebook. They're just never spelled out directly. Only mentioned indirectly. But you cannot make the claim that they do not exist within the black and white print of the book in some spots. You can only argue that it's in error... and once you go down that road... it's a very slippery slope. If that's in error... then the skill section may also be in error.

Your entire basis of argument relies on stating that they don't exist. But there is text in the SR5 core book, and you cannot disprove it's existence. Only make claims of 'taken out of context'... when it's clearly well within context.

Just to use the exact same logic you try to use. The skills section which defines skills is deliberately taken 'out of context' by you to the exact same degree as I used the step 8 rules for final adjustments to the character. Those rules have no context with relation to other non-skill skill modifiers. Any citing of them in respect to them, is similarly taking them out of context. See how easy it is to spin that argument. It's not novel.


Chrome: I agree... the book is an utter mess! (too many people caring more about gloss/artwork/layout than the text!). But I disagree strongly with the weak and shoddy logic that some are employing here. And well it's the internet... a debate for it's own sake takes on it's own life and fun :). In this, case the exact rules interactions are undefined by RAW... to state that by strict RAW it's one way or the other is well wrong.

I just want to point out how ridiculous this particular assertion is. If you're going to posit a flaw in the process or priorities, at least make it plausible...

(For those who don't understand my point: layout, artwork, and text are done by completely different people. Caring about one doesn't detract from the other two, except perhpas indirectly where the influence would have to be relatively minor due to the specific structure of how CGL gets books put together).

In any case, getting back to an earlier point on the balance of the whole thing - Street Sams get easier and better access to attribute augmentations. If the environment were balanced, Adepts would get easier or at least better access to skill augmentations. If skill augmentations are not present, there's a serious balance issue between the two to contend with.

Ok I don't have the patience to pick apart your craziness, but I'll pitch in for this part right here.

No, just no. Your basis for argument relies on stating that they do exist. His argument that you're wrong is one thing, but his main argument is just that there's a clear rule that states that improved ability improves the rating, and that the rating has a maximum. It's straight-forward and clearly in the rules.

Your argument relies on something that is not clear. The Samurai having a parenthesis is a very moot point, since the mage in the same section has a quality for being a magician. Oh and a sim rig (ETA: sorry I meant control rig here, for which one of the rigger characters isn't charged in essence) doesn't cost essence. You can't assert rules based on those examples, that's pretty clear. It's not even a rules section to begin with. And like I said before, the parenthesis seems needed regardless, otherwise it's ambiguous. If you only see rating 5, do you then have to add the rating from the reflex recorder, or is it already included. To clear the ambiguity, you put the parenthesis. It can be explained away while remaining consistent. That's a lot of points against that very weak argument that tries to justify an invented rule that the book doesn't otherwise mention.

And your second argument relies on that little bit in step 8. Namely:
"At this point, characters are basically done, though there are several derived mechanics that must be calculated before they are ready to be played. Since many of these are adjusted by augmentations, it is best to wait until all decisions have been made on skills and attributes before making these calculations."

Semantically, there is absolutely no indication there that skills are augmented per se, only that decisions about skills ought to be considered before making the final calculations. Once again, a very very weak argument in your favor, since once again it can be explained away. Your decisions about skills will affect other decisions, and so you should wait until your sheet is complete before making final calculations.

I see extreme weakness in your argument, to the point where it's generous to consider it valid to begin with. And you go on trying to wrap all that bulldrek in rhetoric. At the end of the day, the argument that the rating has a limit, and that improved ability increases the rating, which doesn't change the fact that the rating is limited, is very strong and hard to go against, from a pure RAW point of view. Your strong opposition to this is truly unwarranted and not based in objective facts, by which I mean words used in the book.

Other than the implanted version, which costs 0.2 Essence.

My bad, I meant to say control rig, listed at 1 essence per rating.

I... wow. The quote you used as "proof" of augmented skills, does not say anything about augmented skills, but rather how derived stats were to be changed based upon augments that can change attributes and skills. Augments can change skills but that does not automatically mean that the skill is now an "Augmented Skill" as a thing, a noun, or a stat, in which there are rules to be applied to it. The only thing that it means is that there are augments that can change the skill's rating without skill points or karma expenditure.

See the other thread as to how much importance to put on the example characters and their adherence to the rules. Maybe the parentheses are used to provide clarification or maybe at some point there was such a thing as augmented skills, but there isn't anymore. Either way the rules are explicit. Don't like them, change them! I will!

No, they do not exist. There is no mention of "Augmented Skills," only modifiers to the skill's rating itself. The rule is simple. I make no claim that it is right or it is in error, or anything else. There are currently four ways to modify a skill (karma, skill points, Improved Ability, Reflex Recorder), each and every one of those ways specifically increases the rating of the skill. The rating of a skill is capped at 12/13 but doesn't care how you get to that rating.

Your argument relies upon there being a thing called "augmented skills." You are putting forth that assumption. The burden of proof lies upon you to show that it does exist.

My argument, on the other hand, does not care if there exists an "augmented skill" or not. Just that increasing the rating of a skill is capped at 6/7 in character creation and 12/13 post creation, and it doesn't matter how you increase it, but there are four ways in which to do so.

What I have done, is cast serious doubt on the existence of "augmented skills" as written in SR5. Your argument relies upon that assumption, but instead of addressing this doubt, you reply that it's "just never spelled out directly." You cannot cite a page to support your argument. I can. Yet you claim I am the one that builds my case entirely upon my own authority.
Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. You need to support your position with facts, ideally from the text itself. This is what separates my logic from yours.
This is demonstrably wrong. Skill points directly increase the respective skill's skill rating. Improved Ability directly increases the respective skill's skill rating. Reflex Recorders directly increases the respective skill's skill rating. Karma expenditure directly increases the skill's rating.
So, uh, since you are demonstrably wrong... your logic is flawed since the conclusion does not flow naturally from the precedent. Citing to all things that increase the skill's rating has an inherent context and relation to each other, and relates to the rule limiting every skill's maximum skill rating.
The rules interactions are explicit. There are multiple ways to raise a skill's skill rating, but that skill rating, no matter how it is improved, is capped at 6/7 in character creation or 12/13 after. The page numbers have been cited, this is what the book, as written, says, as such they are not undefined, and to state otherwise, without citing any actual rules from the book, while claiming I'm the one claiming an appeal to my own authority? Mind boggling.

I apologize to everyone else, and if Falconer, or anyone else, wishes to continue this debate, my inbox is open. I'm done, consider the mic dropped.

Which I did show exists in the book tjn... Always putting up a wall of text to read doesn't change that. You're not addressing things point by point, simply repeating yourself ad nauseum.

You can disagree all you like. But you cannot change the fact that I did demonstrate that they exist in the book.

You can try to throw things out as 'irrelevant' or bugged. But the entire point there is that it exists AND it demonstrates intent. And once again that is a slippery slope... I can just as easily state your text is bugged/incomplete/whatever and disregard it.

You can't point to anything in the book to demonstrate intent as to your reading.

You similarly can't point to anything in the book to handle all the other questions which come up without secondary modifiers to skills.

Ok Falconer, if you've demonstrated that augmented skills exist in the book and you hate walls of text. Please state clearly and succinctly how you support your claim using written rules.

We've shown clearly with 2-3 simple quotes how the RAW supports our claim. Focus on your claim, show it using simple quotes and simple explanations based on actual text.

It seems to me like you're the one using tons of words with little content. Little demonstration. Show me your point clearly, don't go around it, just be straightforward like you claim you can be.

While I think that this is an interesting conversation, I would point out that the freelancer who provided rules interpretations which made it into the first errata document has previously clarified that Improved Ability is apparently seperate from skill ranks rather than additive (thus allowing a Skill 13/Improved Ability 7 build). While Aaron describes his answers as not quite official and possibly incorrect in his signature, we do have official errata that incorporates many of his interpretations so far.

It may not be RAW, but may be RAI.

LINK