Damn Arsenal... perhaps the other weapon system is be superior...as shown by its 5 hits to reassemble vs. 8... and how it's 15F instead of 13F...

Munchkinly speaking, that is just an assigned drawback to the Steyr AUG-CSL that is deliberately omitted from the HK XM 30 rules. In addendum, they could have fixed it in any errata, but they have not. Considering that the core rule book is designed to stand alone and lacks any indication of different skills required for operation the the only skill noted at the beginning of the paragraph.

So, technically I was right, but any reasonable GM, myself included, would rule otherwise.

I would disagree that the rules work just fine when characters can be tweaked with the ability to realibly hit whatever they are aiming at in all but the worst cases or on the flip side, require heavy artillery to scratch.

So yeah, I think I'll stick with the vision of Shadowrun that the fluff surports as being the "correct" one for lack of a better term.

Your line of reasoning *requires* the game your playing to support it. If the game changes, then your reasoning will result in a gimp character.

My character has automatics and clubs instead of the firearms and close combat skill groups. I made those choices because I was trying to save points.

My character was in a jewelry store tracking down a lead. Since it was a jewelry store in a mall in Bellevue, my character wasn't packing a machine pistol. Carrying around machine pistols in mall jewelry stores is a really good way of flat out begging for trouble. Especially since machine pistols are +2 on the concealment check.

As my character was in the shop, 4 guys in trench coats walk in and pull out shotguns and begin to express their displeasure with the fact that my character is still in town. Now, my character does have shock frills on their auctioneer's business suit, because you CAN explain that away, and it would take a highly invasive search to confirm that they are in fact shock frills and not just fur trim. Only I'd just be rolling my base agility since I've got ZERO points in unarmed (I use the frills to shock people that try and grab you and rough you up. No need to roll to hit when they've gone and put their hands on your frills).

Luckily, the rest of my party comes in the door right behind these four, because they managed to spot them being too obvious on their way in. The mage stun bolts one, who drops their shotgun. Nice, I've got a weapon now. So I pick it up, and use it as a club, because while I don't have any skill with longarms, I'm a monster with clubs.

I think if I had taken skill groups, my character would have been more powerful in that situation.

If I had the pistol skill and had been packing a taser pistol or a rich person version of a hold out pistol, I would have been in better shape. Easier to conceal, and if someone did notice, a LOT easier to talk your way out of the situation, because it fits a mostly harmless pre-conception. "Oh, but Mr. Mall Cop who hasn't called Lonestar yet, I just didn't feel safe carrying this expensive piece of jewelry around all by myself. I know I shouldn't have, but I was just afraid to walk around with it. Please don't call Lonestar, I'm already dying of embarrassment, I'll never do it again". Instead of "So yea, I was um... carrying a *machine pistol* in my back pocket because... well... uh... I totally had one for non-criminal reasons and all... and I totally didn't steal this piece of jewelry despite the fact that I totally don't have any documentation that I own it, and if I told you were I got it, you'd think I'm on drugs."

Maybe, but you would have been less powerful in almost all other situations, so you may not have survived to get to that jewelry store. You could have carried a concealable collapsible baton, or picked up the nearest object as an improvised club. Or you could have taken unarmed instead of clubs. All of those are valid solutions which would not gimp you -- what gimps you is learning clubs and unarmed and blades all together. I might even hand you clubs OR blades plus unarmed. If you've got high agility, it doesn't hurt to know unarmed combat, even if you specialize in a melee weapon. But the chain of circumstances where you MUST have all three is just so bizarre and attenuated that it will never happen. And since you don't *need* all three, taking all three is non-optimal. Optimization is nothing other than taking only things you need and nothing you don't.

And pistols are also conceivably useful in addition to ONE other gun skill. You might take pistols because they are uniquely concealable and some of them are completely legal. But you will never need pistols AND automatics AND longarms. And even if you did, you'll never need them all at the same level. If you want a good combat character, pick one gun to specialize in. Make it higher than 4. Then, take additional combat skills at lower levels to save massive amounts of points. DO NOT take them all in a skill group at 4, that's simultaneously more versatility than you need, and less dice than you need, non-optimal, maximal gimpage. You have not convinced me to budge one inch on my position. Having every combat skill at 4 is obsessive just-in-case-ism. You can be prepared for contingencies without wasting points. I recommend it, in fact. What I don't recommend is flushing points down the shitter just in case.

Honestly, I think everyone by now knows that skill groups (especially Close Combat and Firearms) are usually inefficient. You really have no reason to relitigate this issue. I seriously doubt there is anything more to say on this -- I'm repeating myself now for your benefit. If you've got a response I'd be glad to hear it, but you may want to check whether your argument has been trashed already in this very thread.

Close combat is a poor example. My character carried a stun baton and a knife. The same character also had a sniper rifle, pistols, a shotgun, an smg and an assault rifle. What he carried into combat depended on what was needed for the mission. Is it less efficient if you never use multiple weapons the answer is of course yes. Did he have thrown also? Yes, because he carried grenades and there are places where you can carry a knife, but not a gun. It is as much about character concept as it is being prepared for the unexpected. Did he have to be the best? No, but he was scary enough for what he had.

I think the basic point of this thread was that those factors are of no value to someone who thinks a roleplaying game should be about marching through the monster manual from A to Z and shooting everything in the chest with gauss rifles until they 'defeat' the stat blocks of all printed foes. Since they are of no value to someone who thinks that is the proper order of things, therefore they must be completely useless since it is unreasonable to think that other people might find them useful in other circumstances, and anyone who disagrees is just a weak minded fop who doesn't 'get it'.

I'm only talking about min/maxed character builds, of course. Versatility is useful. But the min/maxed character can have plenty of it without sacrificing power. Skill groups for the most part charge you too much for versatility, you're buying a lot more of it than you need, and the points savings are not very great. Again, we've been over this. We came to an agreement that I think everyone would find reasonable. No need to keep this thread alive.

I disagree on your interpretation of the Skill Ratings chart... where does it indicate that a "6" is the basic rating for a character's specialty... remember, a specialty only adds +2 dice, it does not add anything to the Skill itself... and yes, IMO, the suystem is Good, so I do agree with you there Larme...

I have been playing 4e since it came out (and the various other editions since their inception all those years ago), and nowhere have I seen this... in fact, as I pointed out to Cain yesterday, not one archtype in the BBB has a Rank 6 (most rate from 3-4) in any skill... Your right... characters with 22 Dice should not exist, especially at start, but that is a whole different argument/debate, and continues to be hashed out on a continuing basis here on the Forums...

I do not see how you are having a real turd of a game by following the skill ratings as written, it provides a basis for comparison, game balance, and is indeed enjoyable to play, as written... I have a current character, almost 200 Karma, average Dice pools from 10-12 on Basic Primary skills, boostable slightly by circumstance and equipment when needed... all but 2 of his skills are 1-3 Rating (3 being appropriate for a Professional Shadowrunner, especially starting out),,, the only skills higher are his Perception Skill (5) and his Electronic Warfare Skill (5), which are defining characteristics of the character... note that they are not a rating of 6, as he is not the best in the world...

I have very real challenges in the game, but I have not died yet (though hospitalized several times in Oveerflow), and the team has developed into a significant force within the Honk Kong Territories... we are better as a team than we are as individuals, as it should be in Shadowrun... Note that the GM does not have to scale to crazy limits to challenge us, though he has done so for Prime Runners on Occassion, and that is okay...

I know that not everyone likes to play with the skill ratings fluff, as it irritates some people... but just because you do not like it does not mean that it is broken...

Maybe at your table, you have to create more powerful characters because the GM does so, and this is a valid position to argue from, but please, don't look down upon those who use the table descriptors for character development as somehow gimping their characters, and/or playing wrong...

My 2

All I meant by that is that if we built the fluff first, and the system second, we wouldn't have a good game. Fluff doesn't give a rat's ass about balance, fairness, or creating a fast-moving or fun game. Each one has to to built around the other. But when the fluff is inconsistent with the rules, the rules win out as long as they make for a good game.

I disagree that the fluff is built second. I would say the game design is after the fluff. The goal for game design is to allow for the rules to mimic the fluff. Now does this mean the fluff is fully fleshed out? No, but it does mean the designers had an idea of a world and cater rules to how they see the world works. Taking games such as CoC where supernatural beings are very powerful and madness is an ever present danger. They created a mechanic for that. Shadowrun on the other hand has rules for insanity, but no real mechanics for forcing players to be insane. Another game with fluff would be comparing battletech rules for vehicles to SR. Shadowrun doesn't have many rules for heavy weapon systems or vehicle design. We know the SR has artillery, wars, naval ships and ICBMs. However, the rules for playing such things are lacking.

If anything one of the reasons 3rd edition had so many systems is because they had tried to add rules to match fluff. A lot of people feel 4th edition lost a lot of its flavor because the rules were simplified and streamlined. No longer did magicians and shamans play by different rules. Instead the rules were the same even if the fluff was different. From a GM side this is great I don't have to master exception to common rules I just have to know the basics.

Now it's just a chicken or the egg problem. Neither comes first. My only point is, if the system makes a fun game and doesn't need to be changed, and the fluff disagrees with it, we need to change the fluff. We don't need to change the system to mimic the fluff if the system doesn't have a flaw. Contradicting the fluff is not a problem with the rules, as long as they're fun. That's Franktrollman's primary fallacy IMO, thinking that the rules had to follow the fluff. It lead to him spending heroic efforts to completely recreate the game, which is more work than anyone should have to do on a commercially available RPG. All it would take to fix this "problem" is tear up that dumb chart that calls 6 world class, and we're good. Nerfing all characters everywhere just to conform with that chart would not make the game better IMO.

Cracking and electronics are the two groups that have served me very well. the serve well for my rigger hacker roll in the group. other groups just seem to sink points when most of the skills are just useless

That's the thing. If you're going to trade extra effectiveness out of the starting gate for versatility, make sure that you actually need/use all of that versatility. A sammie who takes the firearms group has less dice to start with, but can eventually get that skill group up and get specializations. If you can survive with a few less dice at first, and plan on eventually acquiring all of the firearm skills, then the skill group will save you some Karma over the long run. On the other hand, if you're a hacker and rarely use anything other than a pistol, the firearms skill group would be kind of a waste.

Instead, to many of us, it feels the min/maxed character sacrifices character.


You know threads don't end when you've said your piece, they end when the rest of the internet is done talking.

Actually to me it is not a chicken and the egg. Unless you are trying to design a generic system you will find almost all systems focus their push on rules that mimic the mood of the game. Vampire has humanity, Call of Cthulhu has sanity, Many games (1st Edition DnD also) except ICE systems even recommended you break or change the rules as needed. My problem with DnD was how a king died from a dagger strike when they were almost always 9+ level and a dagger's damage was in the D4 range. Even with multipliers it never worked out as plausible. Shadowrun on the other hand a character can die from a holdout pistol. It is a grittier feel and the rules reflect it. Try to create robocop in shadowrun and it is easy. Same with Aliens or the matrix. Now can you do that with other systems as easily? Not in many cases. Hence the system has done what it is supposed to do and it falls in line with the fluff.

As for the nerfing of characters I disagree. Before the most hits an expert starting character could get was 8. Now they can get up to 12. 4 is professional and most players are in the professional range. It is not the silly I have 6-8 skills almost all are set to 6 and there is an uncapped level. I admit it was a culture shock to see the usual stats of 4-6 dropped to 3-4. Same with skills, but overall it gave a better range and understanding for what the designers had intended instead of looking at the default characters and making a decision from there. Shadowrunners are still professionals, but are not at the top of their game from the get go.

Ok, now it's just semantics, it really doesn't matter which one we say comes first, the rules and fluff are interrelated and it's silly to try and label them "first" or "second." My point is essentially this: the chart listing skill levels is meaningless according to the system, because the chart ignores augmentations. The chart basically assumes that we're in 2009, not in the Sixth World. The chart either fails to, or is not intended to dictate reality in the game, because it treats augmentations as nonexistent. Is 6 strength really one of the strongest humans in the world, when a small investment could turn someone with 5 strength into someone with 9? Is 6 skill really world class when an Adept can boost that up to 9, and add extra bonus dice on besides? The chart is not prescriptive, it is descriptive. And what it's describing is a modern context for skill levels. It's not telling us that nobody should have a 6 or higher, it's just putting skill levels into a context that we can understand. That way, when a streetsam shows up with 18 dice, we know what that means -- 1/3 better than one of the best people in the world today.

However, you've got no basis for claiming that Shadowrunners are not at the top of their game from the get go. The book doesn't say that, and the rules don't require it. If you want, 400 BP can put you at the top of your game in at least one skill. There's a cost to that, in that it keeps you from being versatile. But you can't enforce your starting power levels on other people. If it's a 400 BP character, then it is legal per RAW, whether you created a world class expert in something, or a noob with a bunch of skills at 3. If the designers had intended us to follow the chart religiously, they wouldn't have written the rules as they did. That's the mistake, thinking that the chart controls the system. It doesn't, it just contextualizes skills for us non-sixth-worlders. My entire point hasn't changed -- the chart is attempting to describe the rules and perhaps failing, not the other way around. The rules aren't failing to live up to the chart, the chart is failing to describe the rules. The chart is not a rule, it is context for the rules.

To use an analogy: if I describe a zebra as a red and green striped equine creature, my description is inaccurate. You wouldn't say that, due to my description, zebras are colored wrong, would you? No, you would say that my description has failed. The same is true for our descriptive skill levels chart. If it fails to accurately describe the skill levels of characters, it is not because characters have the wrong skill levels. It is because the chart is inaccurate. There is not one piece of operative language in that chart, it is not a rule. It doesn't require you to do anything, or forbid anything. It is pure, unadulterated context and description. When a description is wrong, you blame the description for being inaccurate. You don't blame the thing being described for not conforming to the messed up description. Calling the rules wrong because they've been inaccurately described by a descriptive chart is just ass backwards, plain and simple.

Is the zebra a PC or an NPC? If the latter, ready made or tailored to the PC's power level? PCs or NPCs with dicepools of around twenty are indeed red and green zebras. The chart describes the world that the game takes place in. All of the premade PCs seem to follow the chart, having DPs (unaugmented) of 8-10ish in their primary disciplines, making them pretty good at their jobs compared to the rest of the world. The goon tables follow them as well, from the amateurish Humanis rabble to the street-sam caliber Red Samurai. This is the point: the table describes the NPCs that populate the world and acts as a guideline for players to measure their character's skills against. It is not meant to be representative of the whacked-out builds the resident munchkin roll-player can come up with.

This is simply the case of the PCs not conforming to societal norms. I see it every time I play as at least half of my compatriots are awakened with 5+ magic scores, despite how rare that's supposed to be. But hell, they're runners. Not exactly ordinary people, right?

At what point do you say that the chart is wrong? The point at which PCs are throwing twice as many dice as the "best ever" (ie. 24 dice)? Three times (36)? Four (48)?

The chart gives us an idea of where we stand against society, and yet, somehow we call into the fourth standard deviation with regularity:

Logic 6 is an IQ of 145 (for a point of reference: 145 is still on the chart (low end 4th standard deviation)
Exceptional attribute gives us 7 and an IQ ~160 or nearing "off the chart" as far as IQ tests go (max 180) and at the low end 5th standard deviation
Logic 1 is IQ ~70 at the lower end of the third standard deviation downwards (anything lower is both unplayable in a game sense and impossible to integrate in normal society in a Real World sense)
Logic 3 is IQ 100, at 0 standard deviations.

Assuming we can map skills the same way, then your above average John (Logic 4, skill 4) falls in around 1 standard deviation high. Expensive tools (+2 DP bonus) boost him up to an effective 2nd standard deviation.

The pornomancer, with all bonuses then falls in at the 22nd standard deviation, roughly.

18-20 dice (ranged combat) falls in around 5th or 6th standard deviation* (smartlink bonus doesn't increase the deviation: anyone can get a smartlink, tracers, or a laser pointer)

How far above "social norms" is +5 standard deviations? 0.006334% Or slightly under 20 thousand people in the entire US. You're attempting to claim that ShadowRunners as a whole are rarer than all magically awakened.

*I'm wary on including the +2 from specilization as a deviation booster, as anyone in their thing will have it, thus average (making 18-20 dice 4th to 5th standard deviation).

Right, it's context. PCs not following the baseline averages does not mean that the chargen rules are wrong. It means that the chart doesn't really describe the level of ability that twinked out PCs have, it's talking about skill and attribute levels in the absence of augmentations.

I think the Devs were probably not so much trying to nerf everyone. That was probably unintentional IMO. What they probably WERE trying to do is to bring it back a little bit to SR2, where Firearms is a skill. But, I have no real place in this discussion other than that. So, have fun. (Btw, I agree, in principle with Larme ).

Perhaps I have been misreading the rules, but I have always taken the maximum modified rating of a skill as 1.5x the characters current skill. Then if the character wants to be as good as the finest mind in a topic he still has to have a skill of 5 to match or exceed the skill if augmented. As for augmented characters have higher dice pools all I can think is that is why you have augmentations. A human maximum dice pool is 14. An augmentated character's is 20 dice. It doesn't bother me a cybered character will probably outplay Michael Jordan at his prime in basketball. To me it is like complaining that a man on a bicycle is faster than one on foot, or a person using a lever and fulcrum over one who uses his bare hands. The machine/tool makes it easier to do things.

As the chart only goes from 1-6, I assume it is intended to model the baseline of metahumanity: the unaugmented human. What do you have to do to get to twenty dice? Start with an elf? Muscle Replacement? Reflex Recorders? Specialization? Smartlink? Aptitude/Exceptional Attribute? The point about the Premade PCs stands. Most here scoff at them and say (quite rightly) 'I can do better'. But is that the point? Should your street ganger have Automatics 6(+2 AR) for any reason other than he's more effective? Does it fit his life experience and circumstances or is it just roll playing? The argument being made is that you are 'gimping' yourself if you don't build a character that is at or at least close to the maximum allowed by the system, and that is simply munchkinism (not that there's anything wrong with that).

It's been a LONG time since I covered statistics in school, but if I'm remembering correctly, 4th(and higher) standard deviation is roughly 4% of the sample, yes? That's still going to be more people than all the awakened on the globe. My IQ is just a couple points short of that and I still meet intellectual equals reasonably often.

The fluff descriptions of the skill ratings themselves are meant to describe the skills in and of themselves. Talking about augmentation is not related to that chart at all and is irrelevant to that chart.

The chart is referencing raw level of skill. That is it. If I have a 3 in this skill, it means generally blah blah blah. This assessment is independent of augmentation, and why anyone would use augmentation as proof that the skill chart is "broken" completely boggles me.

For instance, a character could easily set his skill at a 3 instead of a 6 and still do all of the augmentations available to him to increase the dice pool ridiculously. The level of skill is supposed to be reflective of training and know-how, while the augmentations supplement that.

I guess you could say someone with a smartlink and a Firearms of 4 will shoot as well as a Firearms 6 individual without a smartlink. Yes, this is true; however, the Firearms 6 character will shoot better if you give him a smartlnk AND the source of his shooting advantage doesn't stem from technological advancement, but rather know-how, experience, etc.

Yeah, but that table is made of fail, as it only talks about skill levels completdly omitting the other half of the equation the attribute level.
According to that table someone with Agility 1 and Pistols 7 is the best of the world, even though an Agility 10 Elf has more dice when defaulting to pistols.

Point.
But, once you start bringing in the attribute table and begin examining it in relation to a) augmentation and b) the shift in paradigm with SR4's hardcaps and 200BP limit on starting attributes and all that, everything falls apart anyway.

I don't know where the 20 dice come from. I've never build a 20-die character. I pulled that number from the forum posters of those who say that is the ONLY range you should be in (or better, but at 400 BP you can get into 18-20 just fine).



The problem with the premade characters is that they could get 4 to 6 dice better on 5 BP or less. IIRC one of them lacks a smart link.



That's what wikipedia is for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Rules for normally distributed data:
The central limit theorem says that the distribution of a sum of many independent, identically distributed random variables tends towards the normal distribution. If a data distribution is approximately normal then about 68% of the values are within 1 standard deviation of the mean (mathematically, μ ± σ, where μ is the arithmetic mean), about 95% of the values are within two standard deviations (μ ± 2σ), and about 99.7% lie within 3 standard deviations (μ ± 3σ). This is known as the 68-95-99.7 rule, or the empirical rule.

For various values of z, the percentage of values expected to lie in and outside the symmetric confidence interval (CI) (−zσ,zσ) are as follows:

Getting high numbers of dice is not even super-difficult; you don't even need to minmax excessively.

Take a guy(Agility 4, above average), give 2 levels of muscle toner(6).

A skill of 5. This is damn good, yes, but not world class. In other words, there are likely a fair amount of humans who exist with a skill of 5. Make it a gun, toss on a specialization. There's 7 more dice. Toss on a Smartlink. 15 dice and that's not even trying, really.

Make an elf(Agility 5, which costs the same BP as Human agility 4), and let's say he has one level of Restricted Gear and has a Superthyroid, or Muscle Toner 3. Same skill level. 17 dice. Again, that's not, IMO, particularly munchy.

Even going lower down, a guy with Longarms(shotguns) 4(+2), Agility 3(5) and a Smarlink throws 13 dice. Compared to a garden-variety NPC made by book stats(let's say, 3 Agility, 3 Firearms and a smartlink), he's got 5 dice on him already.

IMO, I'd have rather seen a chart of general diepool ranges, with augmented folks included.

15 dice is ~3rd standard deviation under my post above. His augmentation helps him get there. Normally he'd only be at +2 SD. This is acceptable for ShadowRun characters in my opinion.

The elf is at....4th SD, half way to 5th. Being an elf, and having the better gear gets him there. This is acceptable for ShadowRunners in my opinion, though encroaching on the high end. Restricted gear is a little cheesy IMO. The racial trait is perfectly acceptable in order to get a slight advantage.

The dude with longarms falls in at above average, at +2 SD. +0 SD is 8 dice, for reference: 3 stat, 3 skill, +2 bonus. It's really really hard to not have a +2 bonus to something you're supposed to be trained. Specilization for any skill, or a smartlink for guns. A +4 is more standard for ShadowRunners (10 dice, +1 SD).

My idea of a good starting character is one who has somewhere to grow. Starting off with maxed dice pools in my primary function means I can only expand sideways. I want to be good at my job (+1 to +3 SD) while having room to grow.

Everyone has their own preference character growth; though I admit I don't have any particular one way that I like a character to grow-or even start out.

I'll post 2 fast examples:

I have a kinda old-school detective as one. He's a late 40s guy based heavily on Brisco from the old Law and Order. I started out his attributes from 3-5, gave him a decent Edge, but very light augmentation. (His sheet is in my collection but if I recall his statline, made with 750 Karma/SR4, was around 3/4/3/3/4/5/5/5) I think he has a smartlink and a few eye/ear mods. He does have 2 5's in skills(Perception/Visual and I think it was Infiltration), but the rest were so-so. His best combat skill was Pistols(Revolvers) 4(+2) and a smartlink. His die pools, for the most part, were very tame, though he has a ton of different skills. He's not meant for a big campaign. He's all about working the contacts, being at the right place at the right time. He actually made decent use of skill groups, as well, in his concept. He can grow both up and out.

To contrast, my sammie mentioned already, the elf with a 9 strength and agility, loaded with ware(we don't use availablity limits in our games) huge melee damage and a large(17) melee die pool, as well as a 14 die firearm die pool, and other rather hefty ones. He's made to be my kickass sam. He still has room to grow out, though-I had recently invested in a couple of low, new skills that I figured he would have. His main thing is superb melee combat, good firearms(doesn't prefer them but is good with them), great armoring, with solid stealth skills, social isn't as much his thing but he has the bases covered well. As a contrast-he does not make a lot of skill group use-besides the ones mentioned, Firearms 3/Athletics 2, he goes more basic.

Both characters are fun, both fit in well with the parties, and both grow-but one grows both ways, one grows sideways. Both of them have backgrounds and stories, and fun to play personalities. Both were made with 750 Karma.

I don't think Restricted Gear is cheesy, though. It's a great perk for someone who may have worked for somewhere where they could have gotten a high-tech piece of gear(an ex hacker with a piece of high-end tech, for example.)

But going to skill groups-the top guy makes heavy use of them and it fits him well; the bottom guy, however, I found taking the separate skills for the most part fit him much more.

I never said that huge dice pool characters were wrong, I just think its wrong to think its the norm and that any deviation downwards "hurts fun time."

Obviously if you're playing a game where you're a genetically engineered cyber supersoldier* you're not going to "have fun" where 1 shot kills you. Remember, there's a difference between "fun" and "challenging."


*I'm particularly thinking of Rogue Trooper, which I played on Normal so that I could actually play the game and feel like a genetically engineered super soldier. After finishing I was satisfied at the challenge level, the fun level, and the story level (it was based on a comic strip). I could have played on Hard where it has more challenge, but why? I'm a super soldier, I should be able to walk into a fire fight going "BUHAHAHAHA!" and blow things up with little care about ammo usage or damage.

Ok, rogue trooper did make you manage your ammo usage, but really only for the higher caliber weapons (rocket launchers, mortar, etc.) because you only NEEDED them in certain situations, pretty much anything else died to the machine gun.

You know, tying in games with tabletop isn't always a bad idea.

My favorite Resident Evil is 2. I love the feel of the game, the characters, the plot, and I liked how I had to conserve ammo and be careful. 4 is my second favorite RE game; the ONLY thing that keeps it from edging over is the fact that it felt a little less like RE and more like ''Leon S. Kennedy, Kicking Massive Ass.'' Now, I LOVED it. I loved kicking off heads and mowing down Plagas. But...it lacked a little tiny bit of the survivor horror feel in this transition. But you know, sometimes I am more in the mood to play 4 than 2; I WANT to play the Badass Leon and kick off Plagas heads-other times I want to play part 2 and be more ''oh shit, there are 3 zombies this way, a licker next door and I have 10 shots left.''

Likewise with my Devil May Cry-sometimes I play it on Normal so I can be like Dante in the cutscenes. Sometimes I play on DMD mode so I have to earn every victory.

I'm the same with Shadowrun. Sometimes I want to play Derek(investigator), use the more non-optimal skill groups, light ware and moderate die pools for the feel; other times I want to bust out Kael(the sam), bring katanas to gunfights and cut off heads while curb-stomping another while the rest run in fear.

(I do have to say though even I have my lower-and upper-limits in Shadowrun. It gets to a point where I feel like I am playing someone SO unexceptional and average that I might as well be playing a mailman, or someone a bit too much for this setting, and I might break out Exalted instead for that.)

I used the skill groups for padding. My group has a heavily cybered sammy who feels that if it doesn't doesn't agree with you it should be cut in half, and a mage who feels that all non-awakened are barely better then cattle. I am playing a technomancer, and since I realised that we would be needing to sooth some ruffled feathers and my charisma is the highest, I went ahead and took rating one in the Influence skill group. I could have taken those ten BP and got another rank in one skill with a bit left over for money or contacts, but I felt that basicaly getting two dice on four skills that I was the most likely to use in the group was a better way to spend those points.

Obviously, if I had gone with a super specialized character like the vat-job and the wiz, I would have wanted that extra die in my Hacking. However, sometimes it is a greater help to be a little rounded* if you find yourself in a group of already specialized characters.

*And I am already round, check out my profile...

Not to berate your choice, but I'd have put 1 die in 3 of the skills* and then pumped Negotiation. I doubt intimidation would sooth the ruffled feathers, con will only make it worse. Etiquette might help, though only between you and them, not for them to anyone else.

At 20 BP and 4 skills you're better off taking skill groups, but More likely what I'd do is toss 1 die in Etiquette and then 4 dice in Negotation. Maybe 2 and 3 respectively.

Then you'd have spent at least twice as much as he did. He only raised Influence to 1; the "two dice" he's referring to are the 1 die from having the skill combined with the removal of the -1 die defaulting penalty.

Random aside, my hacker rigger has a modified Logic of 12. Where exactly does that fall as far as society/reality is concerned?

Touche. Then, I'd spend 4BP on 1 rank in Negotiate. Maybe 1 rank in Etiquette.



Augmentations really are a hard thing to place into standard deviations, but assuming that we don't alter the bell curve any, then a 12 is roughly a +9 SD...for a human. Given that you'd have to have an unaugmented Logic of 8 to even have an augmented of 12, you're really only at +7 for your race. Without the augmentation you're at about a +3 or +4 (natural IQ) depending on Exceptional Attribute or not.

i had theorised his 12 came from having the gene treatment and the quality that improve your natural maximum attribute by 1. and that, as such, his normal racial max would be 6...

The natural 8 comes from exceptional attribute and the metagentetic improvement quality from SURGE (RC 114). The genetech is something I intend to invest in soon enough, it's mostly a RP thing for this guy to have the biggest brain on the planet.

I'd forgotten metagenetic. So yes, pre augmentation he's got an IQ of like 175 or better. After its close to 230.

Think Flowers for Algernon, only non-fatal.

Don't forget to find a nice Nosferatu to bite him.