OT for the thread, but on mundanes vs magics. A thought I've had (but not tested) would be to give non-Awakened characters a natural "Counterspelling" score equal to their Essence. Gives a little something to the non-cybered folks, and even could be made to make sense given there's a relationship between Essence and Magic.
It wouldn't stack with a Counterspelling skill, but it would give a group of regular Joes a chance to deal with getting manaballed in the face. Maybe only vs Direct or Mana spells.
Or, even just allowing a Full Defense vs Mana spells, using WIL + WIL (or WIL + CHA, or WIL + something). That way it's about on par with firearms, where you get 1 attribute's dice automatically, but can use your action to defend with 2 attributes' dice - compared to the attribute + skill for a full ranged defense.
Full Version: Low Skill, High Attribute vs.
Personally I just tailor the number and strength of magical opponents the PCs cross based on the PC team's make-up. If there isn't any magic on the team, and the PCs don't actively seek it out in the game, then I run on the premise that the players aren't particularly interested in the magical bits of SR.
SR is big enough to play that way and still have lots to do.
SR is big enough to play that way and still have lots to do.
Threadjack!
(Warning, Warning, Will Robinson! [waves arms around wildly])
(Warning, Warning, Will Robinson! [waves arms around wildly])
Just step off the thread, back away, let us drive it to where we want, and nobody gets hurt.
http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/uploaded_...0him-788789.jpg
http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/uploaded_...0him-788789.jpg
To give Alex his thread back, and to keep things from turning into a traffic jam, I started a new thread for ideas for giving mundanes anti-magic capabilities. If you guys wanted to re-post your ideas there, that would be awesome: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=19228
Honestly, if I were too concerned about Shadowrun's system I'd just switch the way I looked at it. Instead of seeing Attributes and Skills as separate entities, look at Skills as being focused applications of the Attribute (sort of like how games like WEG's Star Wars worked) and then readjust the skill chart in comparison. Sort of like Attributes representing your overall competence and aptitude in a large pool of skills. For instance, if you have Agility 3 and Pistols 3, your skill level isn't 3, it's 6, with a score of 6 being considered average/typical.
I'd probably also drop the defaulting penalty on most skills. Instead, I'd denote some skills as Professional skills (such as Cybertechnology or Pilot Aerospace Crafts) and the not only lower the dice pool by -2, but limit net hits to one hit only when defaulting from those Professional skills.
I'd probably also drop the defaulting penalty on most skills. Instead, I'd denote some skills as Professional skills (such as Cybertechnology or Pilot Aerospace Crafts) and the not only lower the dice pool by -2, but limit net hits to one hit only when defaulting from those Professional skills.
| QUOTE (Emperor Tippy) | ||
You ever met a current mechanic? Most of them have college degrees, and most are very intelligent. The mechanics working on top cars (BMW's, Mercedes, etc.) can easily pull down hundred thousand dollar salaries and they have a job that can't be outsourced. Today's current cars are nothing like those of even 15 years before. A new BMW has more processing power in it than your desktop. My dads been a mechanic for his whole life, first on race cars and after he married my mom, regular cars. My parents bought their first home by the age of 30 and my mom has never worked since they got married. When he was 40 we moved into a multimillon dollar home (7.5 wooded acres 18 miles from the Washington Monument). At the age of 50 his current net worth is several million dollars (good investments). So yes, mechanics (at least the ones that are any good), are fairly logical. |
Not a fallacy, but a poor example I admit as I know very little of mechanics. I was referring to the old stereotype low-educated low-tech mechanics were skills and experience is more important than logical thinking.
Come to think of it I play with a metro mechanic that really is very smart and logical (albeit not always too wise).
But the point still stands, skills SHOULD be more important than stats, but there is no good way of making it so without breaking the system (and yeah max hits does that, even if the minimum is 1).
Besides why fix what is not broken?
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| I'd probably also drop the defaulting penalty on most skills. Instead, I'd denote some skills as Professional skills (such as Cybertechnology or Pilot Aerospace Crafts) and the not only lower the dice pool by -2, but limit net hits to one hit only when defaulting from those Professional skills. |
So you'd nix the normal defaulting penalties and allow defaulting at pernalty on skills you can't default to?
My group sticks with one of the optional rules from the core book... the maximum number of successes you can get is equal to Skill x 2. Works pretty well... a large attribute just ups the chances you'll hit your cap, while the skill ups your actual maximum level of success in addition to providing dice.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| It is easy. 'Attribute' and 'Skill' are labels, not descriptions or definitions. The biggest inconsistancy is the baggage you bring that you assign to the labels. Realize what the 'Attribute' and 'Skill' represent by approaching this from the other way around. Assign to the labels in your head what is said on the matter by collective of the rules. All the rules and not just limited to some stupid fluff table that IMO is the worst, most misleading part of the BBB (in other words the distant second for biggest inconsistancy, although maybe inconsistancy isn't the best word for it). |
Oddly enough, I agree with blakkie here. The "attributes" and "skills" are just labels.
That being said, it's a travesty that the "skills" cost so much relative to the "attributes". A point of "attribute" is mechanically much better than a point of "skill group", and yet it costs the same. I don't know why. I've talked to the line edittor of the game about it and I still don't know why. I get the impression that "skills" were a much bigger deal at some point during the design process.
From a mechanics standpoint, I cut the price of skills in half across the board. No exceptions. And it works fine.
This ends up increasing the average dice pool of characters within their specialty by about 2 and increases the disparity in dice pools between characters who are moderately focused in an area and characters who don't give a damn by four. And decreases the disparity between a character who is totally focused and a character who is moderately focused by 3.
And more importantly, it makes me feel better because I see more characters with attributes and skills that are about equal.
-Frank
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.