Similar to the other post about power levels, I would like to know what people think about skills, and what level they are actually playing with at home.

I don't want this to devolve into a flame war, so please, just answer the OP for yourself, because I would like to see an actual cross-section of the people who are willing to respond.

Essentially, I want to know if people are playing with the current optional rule, and what their thoughts are on the proposed SR4A changes to cap Dice Pool midifiers based on skill. I know I saw some of this in another thread, but I wanted to ask it as a 4th question in the power level thread so we could compare how things look.

My group uses the optional rule, and my GM was delighted with the proposed change. If nothing else, it should limit the number of dice we have to throw around!I welcome any and all responses that talk about your own experiences with the two ideas, and how you feel they do/will affect your games.

We play with a fair number of house rules. In particular, we have no cap on skills, and award "experience" in addition to karma. Experience is just like karma, but can only be spent on skills. With this rule in place, we see a fair amount of skill improvement, as well as highly skilled (as opposed to extremely talented) runners.

As far as specific numbers, our most specialized character might have a skill at 7 (plus specialty), with loads of other support skills at 3-4.

Edit: I didn't answer your poll because none of the responses really fit my group.


-Clay

Ok... We play with the RAW... Skills capped at 6 (Aptitude of 7)...
I really use the descriptive texts to set the level of capability for my characters... a skill of 3 is Professional, 4 is Veteran, etc...

Most of my characters have a skill of 3-4... with the occassional 5 or 6 depending upon character type and Background experience... my average dice pools fall in the 10-12 range with the occassional hitting high teens rarely (my current character has a Perception of 17, 20 if the tactical network is functioning and I receive the bonus)... so we do not have a problem with dice pool sizes... my average support skills range from 6-9 dice total...
This is typical for our games in general...
Hope that this helps...

I null voted too. I would have picked "Some", but I don't like some of the things they have done to limit dice pools (I disagree less with the idea than the implementation). Personally, I think the existing skill ratings, with or without modifiers, are too narrow of a spread to accurately fit the accompanying text. The best in the world will get, on average, about 2 more successes than a rank beginner.

There might be a few too many stacking modifiers, at least for social skills, although empathy software is the only thing that I would out-and-out nerf. But personally, I believe that these modifiers are important for Shadowrun's transhumanist theme - that you can just get some implants and software, and be able to do superhuman things.

That's actually what I meant: the idea of limiting the pools. I had heard they still weren't sure if final print would limit to skill+skill or skill+stat. That's why I was so mealy mouthed about that phrasing. I consider even their current implementation better than nothing, and still less limiting than the optional "hit cap" rule. Thanks for the responses!

I don't really have an answer here... as your poll wording isn't very good. You don't ask which you prefer, but which is used or both. And that can vary.

If you're limiting hits by skill, then capping pools isn't overly necessary.
If you're limiting pools by skill, capping hits isn't overly necessary.

Coming from a prior edition, I can see how you love to emphasize skills. But I have to admit I really like the attribute + skill mechanic. The only problem is that attributes are undercosted relative skills.

Quite frankly though... the skill system scale is something of a joke... if you have players coming out of chargen w/ rediculously high world class levels w/ no room or time required to grow into those skills.

Really? I thought it was pretty speciffic:
1) fine without limits
2) like the proposed SR4A limits
3) use the hit-cap optional rule
4) use both rules to emphasize skill and limit pools

When I go back and re-read the questions, it still seems pretty clear to me. I was asking about two rules, if you use them singly, in combination or not at all. That's four choices.


That's a matter of opinion, isn't it? And the actual subject of the question I posed, as I recall. Thank you for taking the time to answer.


The Attribute + Skill mechanic... which hasn't really changed in twenty years? Or were you referring to the SR4A dice Pool limit tied to the Skill + Attribute value? And I prefer to emphasize skills due to simple consideration of game mechanics; under the base system, skills are relatively pointless if you have enough stat. Why bothering to take a skill past one or two (other than for role playing purposes) when stats, even at the new x5 multiplier, are cheaper across the range? It has little to nothing to do with prior editions I have played. That and I would like to see an amateur with high skill routinely best a master with average stat but exceptional skill when the game mechanic dice pools are identical. Think fencing: AGI 8, Skill 0 versus AGI 3, Skill 5. I don't care how agile the kid is, that veteran fencer with "average" human agility is going to score more often because they really KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

But, again, that was the reason for the poll question: to get people's feelings on the issue.


No time required to grow into those skills... so the one skill you took at 6, leaving all other at 4 or less... you haven't ever seen a fourteen-year-old Olympic gold-medalist gymnast? Or two skills at 5: Longarms and Specialized Skill: Skiing. The Olympic Biathlon... competitors are often in their early twenties. Those wouldn't qualify for 5/5 under the descriptions in the RAW? Sorry, but those two examples came immediately to mind. Was there something else that struck you as laughable about the skill scales? If you're Mary Lou Retton, how much further do you think you can go in demonstrable skill? Have the GM allow you to take "Aptitude" after CharGen, as you reveal previously untapped potential beyond even world-class norms? Without magic (read: adepts) or some other form of enhancement to allow you to achieve "wire-fu" levels of prowess and skill, I think the skill scale makes an awful lot of sense as it is.

What? The mechanic was just Skill until SR4.


In reality innate capability and skill have much more complicated interactions. Look at athletics, or even just climbing. Knowing what you're doing helps, but if you aren't strong and limber you won't get far. Use of computers? Sure, intelligence helps, but mostly because it enables you to be more familiar and learn and remember more computer things. Fencing? I think the curve gets weird. With no or little training you should lose to anyone competent, but with decent skill physical ability becomes more important.

Capping based on skill seems like an okay idea for realism. I haven't played with it yet. In some ways SR3- seemed like a better model (yes, I'm still biased): your Skill rating wasn't just training, it was the composite of your abilities from all sources. A 4 in a skill might mean a little bit of training and a lot of raw talent, or lots of luck, or bungling incompetence buried by immense experience and exhaustive study. Skill as the only measure of how good you are at something makes abstract sense.

I don't like skill caps in about any way. I don't like heavy success capping(though I DO somewhat see the reason for it houserule wise), and I don't like the fact they capped skills.

At our table, we removed skill caps, allowing you to go past the hard cap normally. This makes skills quite attractive to increase.

We are quite lean at our table, allowing attributes to break caps as well(though this gets more expensive, since it would be harder to do-skills cost the same regardless of level.)

I've actually found I look forward to being able to increase the skills of my characters if I see it necessary(some i see going up rather than out.)

While capping based on skill seems realistic, I'm playing a game with elves, adepts and dragons and I don't necessarily need a lot of real-life stuff at the table. Some stuff, sure. I don't mind a little bit of things realistic. I don't even mind quite a few things realistic, but I'm playing a freaking 2.1 meter tall heavily cybered elf dude who can kick heads off. This alone is not realistic in any way. I've also heard of capping on Skill+1. This means even a freaking skill 5 can never get more than 6 hits-which can be taken care of much more easily. I suppose if you like a very low-danger game(since combat would be very hard to stage up) it would work, though. While I like a more laid back game, I do like there to be that chance that ''i might have to spend some Edge this fight if they get a lot of hits!''

But yeah. No capping skills for us. We like it the SR3 way of being able to keep going if one wants.

My problem with skill+skill is that it makes the differences between metatypes meaningless. An elf with a higher natural Agility should have a higher dice pool cap than a human. I have never heard it being anything but skill + Attribute, and even then it is only an optional rule (except for social skills). It is fairly laughable, because few things other than social skills will even come close to exceeding that cap, and the latter only by using lots of extremely conditional modifiers.

Skill is a measure of experience, so skill ranks should be more important than other sources (specilization being and extremely cheap option, regardless).

One of the reasons I'd favor upping the cap on skill ranks after chargen (to 12). It just takes a little re-definition of the examples of skill ranks (in fact, double every number, a 1 is now grammatically a 2, and a 2 is a 4 and the rating 6 skill hyperpeakform people now have a rating 12 in that skill).

Sure, you'll start seeing larger die pools, but not until later on in a campaign, after you're character's been earning buckets of karma.

Don't forget that the guy with Agility 8 and no skill is DEFAULTING, so he gets a what? a -3 to his dice-pool?

Defaulting in SR4 is Attribute -1.

So an 8 Agility fellow rolls 7 dice.

And if using the 'capped' rule.. only gets a max of 1 hit (or 1 net hit depending on your playstyle and house rule).


Karenshara: read your questions...
1. no limits
2. I like
3. we use (not like... parallel phrasing is important in polls)
4. both

Other options not included.. one but not the other, which one doesn't matter.
Or another common one, where net hits are capped by skill instead of just hits.

It's possible to like 2, but actually have 3 used by 'us' (as opposed to I).