I volunteer. I also think Yerameyahu, toturi, TJ, UmuriVI (spelling?) and maybe a couple others should be in on it. Oh, and pbangarth and yourself.

Absolutely true, but, it'd be a factor for me personally, nonetheless.

Better yet, rotate the opportunity among various folks. Include one total newcomer / newbie in each group (IMO it would be very useful to get feedback from the POV of a non-expert, so that the wording is kept simple as well as clear and precise). Even among a "core group", I would have one or two of them "sit out" each book - with different folks, or pairs of them, sitting out each different product, of course.

...

...

And, here's a thought: those community members can even provide some of the "Shadow Talk" bits. Give each their own persona on the in-setting Jackpoint (which is, itself, a bit of compensation / "payment" for we gamer-geek types), and the opportunity to write a few bits of IC dialog for the books they participate in "peer reviewing". The author can designate spots in their manuscript for one-off comments and/or back-and-forth debates ... the reviewers submit their suggestions .... the author and Catalyst select the ones they like, and ... finis.

For an extra perk, list the "peer review crew" in the credits for the book, too. That way, the community proofreaders get (a) a free copy of the book they work on; (b) the opportunity to contribute a little bit of fluff to that book; and © "their name in lights" in that book's credits section (or, well, in ink, anyway).

...

I think that'd be an awesome approach to take for 5th. The rewards cost for Catalyst would be quite low ... their product quality would improve (significantly, IMO) ... and the entire community as a whole would feel more involved and invested in "their" game.

Sounds good.

I haven't even played Shadowrun since 2000, but I have always kept up with the game as a loyal grognard despite many overarching errors and problems that are inherent with an unbalanced system like SR. In my opinion not a lot needs to be changed beyond re-doing character creation methods, dumming down magicians a bit (or giving mundanes better anti magic), eliminating redundant/exploitative gear and upgrades, and simplifying rules for especially complicated sections like vehicle combat and hacking.

Oh, heck. If I were at the helm of a 5th edition? My "Big Issues" list would include, just off the top of my head:

• Armor/Soak numbers are way too high. I'd start out by reducing all the armor numbers for various pieces back to their 2E or 3E levels. The game should be lethal to a much higher degree than 4E provides for.
• Drain codes for spells are completely out of whack. They need to be re-examined from the ground up. And it doesn't always have to be "(F/2)+X". The overall pattern should be [(F+Y)/Z]+X, where X and Y can be anything from -99999 to +99999, and Z can be anything from +1 to +99999 (but is usually 2, and occasionally 3). Regardless, there should be a clear formula for determining which spell gets what drain code ("Elemental effect? Y goes up by __. Mana spell? X goes down by __. Area spell? X and Y both go up by __." And so on.
• Metahuman Attribute adjustments need to be tweaked. As it stands, a -1 or -2 is a non-issue, unless it directly impacts a specific archetype (Troll Mages, especially Charisma traditions). Conversely, a +1 or +2 is too good if it does directly affect a specific archetype (any Dwarf mage; any Charisma-tradition Elf or especially Pixie). I honestly think they should simply be applied AFTER you buy your attributes.
• Attribute purchasing itself could use a reworking. I've always liked how GURPS does it: "if you don't say otherwise, you're Joe Average". Start all attributes off at three, and buy up or down from there.

Of course, you can trivially do the '3 is base' thing by just giving people fewer points to spend.

You should dig up to old 5e thread we did a while back, and/or do another. It's always fun!

My first impression is "90 fewer points; you get 10 for lowering an attribute by 1, 5 more (total 15) for lowering it by 2. Make sure your metatype won't drop it below 1."

I guess thats the most usefull info you would get. People who know other rules tend to interpret based on those rules... So in the end you get their interpretation of what shadowrun should be, instead of what you have written...

@_Pax._

Let me make that a simpler formular without loosing anything F/Z+B.
(Explaination: [(F+Y)/Z]+X=F/Z+Y/Z+X. Y/Z and X are both only depended from the spell so you may combine them to a new variable named B)


That would pritty fuck up the free spirit rule...
Maybe only give the minattribute as a bonus and reductions to the max as a malus. Or rewrite it.

Absolutly annoying if you do it with Karma.
Sorry, but now it is faster and achieves the same.

I'm not sure what specific use he had in mind, but presumably the point was to have *more* variables… so you could independently vary them.
Is it even possible to mess them up *more*?

Exactly. Ponder the difference between these two formulae:

• (Force + 1) / 2
• (Force / 2) +1

Then consider the possibility of a formula like (pulling numbers out of the air) [(Force +3) / 2] +4.

I mean, you wouldn't want to consider that possibility very often; simplicity is always the goal. But if you were doing spell design and the whole point was to factor in Indirect, Elemental, etc., it's not impossible you'd want those to have transparent contributions. Personally, I think it's more likely that something close to the current system is the big winner on simplicity (i.e., straight +/- X for things like Reduced Target). (Or even *X, so adding an Element is a flat Drain*1.5, for example.)

We would simply have to see some actual applications to evaluate this suggestion, but the point is that factoring out the variables Pax specifically put there isn't helping either way.

How are either of those more simple than (F/2) + X?

It's not supposed to be more simple, but more powerful. I'm not convinced you're gaining much yet, though.

Indeed. What i woud much rather see is dropping that "divide by 2" altogether (same goes for melee damage). Because what does it lead to, really? Right, no one casts anything on an even force most of the time because you could just as well add one to your spells power with no additional drain. Just using Force as base drain value would be simpler, imho, although the modifiers would have to be adjusted of course.

Force, straight up?

No mage would ever, ever, ever cast a combat spell. Seriously: they would be doing as much damage to THEMSELVES, as to the other guy. Possibly more.

You'd have to adjust the modifiers so far, that anything F3 and under had ZERO drain.

Seriously. Even at F-2 ... a F6 spell - no overcasting or anything - would face 4 drain. And if that's where you set, say, Stunbolt ... then "Napalm Wall" is going to have to be F+8 or similar.

But then, at something like F-5? F5 cast, every time, all day long, no danger of EVER seeing drain.

Well, the point is that (F/X)+Y can have different results than Force/2+X.
So you get something for making it this complex. (And as a matter of fact, SR already uses F/C+Y, just look at the heal spell...

@Yerameyahu
My point is, that one of those variables is useless. It does not add anythin in


@_Pax._
Jesus, it does not add anything.
Challange:
Every drain resulst for any given force you get with [(F+Y)/Z]+X I can get with F/Z+B,too.
So you added one variable, but this varible does not do anything other than making the formular look more complex.
If you want to add more variation you could make it like that: F/Z+B+C/F.

Challenge accepted.

So, not trying to make it BALANCED at all, but for purely illustrative purposes:

([F + Y] / Z) + X where ...
F = Force
Y = Effect Modifier
Z = Base Divisor
X = Primary Modifier

EFFECT MODIFIER:

• Physical spells add +1
• Elemental Effects add +1 for the first, +3 for the second, +5 for the third, and so on
• Instant spells add +1
• Permanent spells add +3
• Stun damage adds -1
• Touch spells add -2

PRIMARY MODIFIER:

• Area and Wall spells add +2
• Extended Area spells add +3
• Combat spells add +1
• Direct spells add +1

DIVISORS:

• Standard is 2
• "Trivial effect" spells are 3 (example: Fashion; Healthy Glow)

Now, see, you put those various pieces together based on the actual effects of the spell.

So, something like "Napalm Wall" would be:
F = Force
Y = 5 (Physical, two elemental effects)
Z = 2 (standard)
X = 2 (Wall)

... or, ([Force + 5] /2) +2 ... assuming Magic 4:

• Force 1: 6S
• Force 2: 6S (6.5, rounded down)
• Force 3: 7S
• Force 4: 7S (7.5, rounded down)
• Force 5: 8P
• Force 6: 8P (8.5, rounded down)
• (etc)

Whereas, Wall of Fire woudl be:
F = Force
Y = 2 (Physical, one elemental effects)
Z = 2 (standard)
X = 2 (Wall)

... or, ([Force + 2] /2) +2 ..., which can in this case be reduced to (Force / 2) +3:

• Force 1: 3S
• Force 2: 4S
• Force 3: 4S (4.5, rounded down)
• Force 4: 5S
• Force 5: 5P (5.5, rounded down)
• Force 6: 6P
• (etc)

And finally, "Makeover" might get:
F = Force
Y = -1 (Physical, touch)
Z = 3 (trivial)
X = 0

... giving us (Force - 1) / 3, which is to say "don't critically glitch":
[*] Force 1: minimum 1S
[*] Force 2: 1S
[*] Force 3: 1S
[*] Force 4: 1S
[*] Force 5: 2P
[*] Force 6: 2P
[*] (etc)
[/list]

So yes, sometimes the formula could be simplified. But not always.

Napalm Wall:
Force/2+4.5 (Same example as yours)
Wall of Fire
Force/2+4
Force/2-0,3

You do not like the odd numbers? No problem, round normally. Only thing it does? It may affect the draincode for odd force numbers.
And what would be the changes if rounded?
Napalm wall Force/2+4
F1=4
F2=5
F3=5
F4=6
F5=6
F6=7
Firewall: No change
Makeover Force/3+0
F1=1
F2=1
F3=1
F4=2
F5=2
F6=2

So either there is no change and in case you only allow natural numbers the draincode may go up or down by 1. Meaning the drain of F1 becomes the drain of F2 or something like that.
Sorry, but thats quite frankly nothing.

(The only way it would really have an in game effect would be a spell like that:
((F-10)/2)+2 if after every calculation only natural numbers are allowed. (So 6-10=0)
Aside from that, you are making the system much harder to use for close to no effect.

It's *conceptually* useful, obviously. No one was saying the end result wouldn't be the same. How, for example, do you know that Napalm Wall is +4.5? Does +4.5 appear on the chart of drain code mods? What if it happened to be a X/3 spell? Suddenly, that precalculated 4.5 is invalid.

Again, I don't know if this is *worth* doing, but it's clear that the two notations are different. Yours is lossy and opaque.

Great. wonderful. Now tell me how you get TO those formulae.

Don't you get it? I'm talking about a whole system for calculating drain codes, that is (a) consistent, and (b) friendly to new spells. One that works like a menu: "Yes to these two, and those three; drop the numbers into the template and BAM, we have this spell's drain code".

So. You say "(F/2)-0.3" is the same as the "(F-1)/3" I wrote. Tell me, HOW do you get there? And more importantly, how do you do that, using the same modifiers for being "A physical spell" that gets you to "(F/2)+4.5" for Napalm Wall?

...

The answer is, you don't. More than that, you cannot ... not without an intermediary step that is 100% what I suggested, and you're trying to reject.

My suggestion isn't about the final code you write down on your sheet. It's about the process of determining that drain code; it's about figuring out what the drain code for a spell should be.

Simplifying the expression of that formula after the fact, or not? Irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant.






I'll admit, neither do I. But I suspect it would, even if it only showed up in a section on "custom spell design".

Does not work at all. Can't work.
A new spell has a new effect. So how to in any case value that?

Take your EFFECT MODIFIER devide them by 2 and add them to the PRIMARY MODIFIER.

The point is, this system makes everything harder. Spells now have 3 fixed variables for the drain code instead of two.

If you really want to make rules for adding new spells, you need to dig much deeper.
You would end up with two formulars which spit out the PRIMARY MODIFIER and the DIVISORS.

Ingame everything stays easy and you may knock yourself out with the calculation.
The Problem is, you are scratching at the surface. If you really want to build a consistant and usable system using single Boni and Mali.... You end up with at least 20 pages.

And at this point: Why not just cut the crap (since there will be discussions about what is trivial and what not anyway) and make it GM fiat. Give some rules for changing Spells by lowering or increasing drain (adding elemental effects, restricting targets, range etc.) and fly with that?
And if you have a new spell? The group just tells if the spell is ok for the game or not and if it is ok, the group sets the PRIMARY MODIFIER and the DIVISORS.

"Does it have an elemental Effect?" (Yes/No)
"Is it a Physical spell?" (Yes/No)
"Is it an Area or Wall spell?" (Yes/No)
"Is it a Permanent spell?" (Yes/No)
"Is it a Sustainable spell?" (Yes/No)
"Is it a Touch-ranged spell? (Yes/No)


That works for when the divisor is 2.

But not if it's some other number ... like 3. Like, you know, the third example I gave? Doing it the way you've just described could not arrive at either (F-1)/3 or (f/3)-0.3. Physically unable to. You would instead end up with (using your notation) (F/3)-o.5. Which is close ... but not the same.


CHALLENGE: design a brand-new spell. One not in the books, at all. One with a drain code that more than 70% of the Dumpshock regulars could agree is "spot-on accurate".

And you think with a system it would work?
But alright:
Endure
Duration: sustained
Type: physical
Range: touch
Drain:F/2
This spell adds hits*2 dice to any test against fatigue damage caused by walking, swimming, climbing and so on.
It does not help against stundamage in general or against any other source of damage.

And see, I'd say that giving it the same drain as Manabolt or Confusion is a tad excessive. I'd argue for F/2-1, in the current system.

@_Pax._
Sounds good, too. But I on the other hand would prefere to add one to manabolt.

So we were off by 1 point? Thats all? And you think you could build a system with which people will be off less than one point?

I don't understand this 'challenge'. The question surely is not, 'should people just eyeball spell drain, or should they use an objective system?', right? We're just talking about what *kind* of objective system. The current one is F/2 + (various modifiers), while Pax is suggesting that a better system could use a variable for the '2' as well (and one other variable). In theory, having three variables instead of 1 allows more flexibility (and again, we'd have to see if that flexibility is useful).

In either case, I don't see how Irion's point is useful. Either we don't want those extra variables, or we do, but we'd never want to just have simplified forms that keep the variables *while* obscuring them.

In the current system, spells range from -1 to +2 most of the time, with a few uncommon outlayers that have higher +'s. So "Just one point" is something like twenty five percent of the standard range.

Suddenly, not so insignificant ... is it?

..

And really, I don't understand your consistently vehement opposition to an off-hand idea. The idea didn't kick your puppy, or eat your lunch. So why are you SO opposed to it??

Alrgiht. Very simple.
If you have a formular like a²+b/c²+F(orce)/d+e= M; g+h²/i=D
And the drain is
Force/D+M the formular does not matter matter in game, only if you build the spell. And it does not matter if it takes 10 or one minute to build a spell, really. Since you won't be building spells all the time.

And if your really want to build a system to produce spells, adding some modifiers won't probably cut it. Since you just get yourself a system for changing spells.
You need to add simple effect together to create complex one.

You know, all I get from that is "I object for the sake of objecting, not for any real articulable reason".

So ... fine, we're done here. >:P

My point is, that addind one or two more modifiers in the drain code, really does not change something.
You might be one point lower or one point higher in the end.
The problem is still to build an effect, which is within the system.

It starts with simple things: An increase attribute spell(mental) only mana based.
Do or don't?
An increase attribute spell increasing two attributes?
Do or don't?
If do, than how?
One per net hit each or destribute between them?

In order to really flesh out rules for that you have to build up a hole system.
You have to base it on other parts of the book.
For example:
Health spells: Health spells which give the equivalent of an positive quality add X per BP they give per hit. (Or something like that)
For example there is natural armor in the book. If a spell gives natural armor you base the drain and the effect on how much the equivalent quality costs.

No one said it mattered in the game, AFAIK. I understood Pax's suggestion as a setup for *building* spells. It's fine to simplify as you did… *later*. It's horrible to do so *first*. It was in the bit you quoted of me: 'we'd never want to *just* have the simplified forms'.

I am aware that a few folks have a house rule dropping the /2 part for overcast spells, but I too think that a simple (F - more mods; minimum 1) might be the way to go in SR5. Mages would still cast combat spells, but they would think twice about throwing around F10 stunballs at everything that moves. I wouldn't change the STR/2S mechanic for UA cbt though.

If I were designing SR5 I would add a Char Gen "rarity points" system, where everyone gets, say 20 points. Awakened characters would pay x number of points (say 7 for Mage, Mys Ad, Technomancer and 5 for Adept). Every attribute at 1, 5 or 6 would cost 5 points (I wouldn't discriminate between 5 and 6 - the BP cost for hard capping is enough), 1 skill at 6 5 points, or a skill at 5 2 points, and other abusable qualities such as Restricted Gear, Surge etc their own points value. Not paying points on awakening would give mundanes a slight edge over their magical counterparts in this regard, but nothing to write home about, and mages might have to think about whether to get that Power Focus 4 or soft cap their remaining drain attribute, for example.

How can it not matter in the game.
If now you have Force/X+Y (X can be 2 or 1 and Y can be any full number)
If you change that to (Force+X)/Y+Z every spell in the book gets a bit more complex.

Irion, remember we are talking about some theoretical SR5 system and not a house rule for SR4. Pax suggested adding another variable as a way of adding flexibility to calculating drain in spell design, and when you challenged him he put up a sample system using this thinking. I am not sure it is particularly necessary, and it seems to me to be a minor tweak rather than a rewrite, but from where I'm sitting it seems a pretty balanced attempt at hypothetically refining the system.

@Midas
I get it. And I am not saying that it will break anything. The point I am trying to raise is, that you have to see it in the context.
Now there are two kind of spells. One with drain F/2+X and F+X.
So you need just to write down two numbers on your sheet and the calculation of the drain is also quite simple. One division and one addition.
This rule increases the formular to 3 numbers and some brackets. The calculation is now one addition, one division and another addition.

The point is, it does not really matter how hard it is to create a spell. You may use hundrets of variables if you want to. You may use pages of tables. It won't interfere with the game.
But a general change to the draincode will. Yes, not by much. But it adds to every other bit.

And thats one of the main problems in this edition. The rules in the corebook were easy to follow. But with every additional book it got more complex. You started to add more and more modifiers and so on.
Just as an example: The core book did not care about BC and it did not have any ways for adepts. So a magic 6 adept had powers worth 6 points, all the time. Easy!
With BC his magic dropped and you had to choose powers to deactivate. But again, it was just a question of finding powers worth X points.
Now with an adept following the way of X, due to the loss of magic one power losses its reduction and you need to get rid of X powerpoints. So, instead of just dropping one point you need to recalculate one power (first you need to choose which) and redestribute your powerpoints.
It gets more complicated.

So, when adding options, I would try to make sure that those options have no additional effect "ingame" if they are not beeing used at the moment.

Dude, you were the one who said it wouldn't matter in the game. I was just agreeing (and pointing out that it's a nonissue):Basically, this whole quote supports Pax. Again, AFAIK, Pax is describing a flexible spell *building* method. Just as the drain for a spell in SR4 RAW is not F/2 + (3-1+4-2), but instead 'F/2+4', so his notation doesn't *matter* in play. You simplify *after* you finish adding all the factors during spell creation. Now, with varying divisors, it likely won't be possible to simplify as much (without having fractional bits, if you like), but that's beside the point.

@Yerameyahu
That not how I read it.
His suggestion was to go (F+X)/Y+Z.
Factual he wanted to add the X modifier.

For example armor would have been (using his modifiers)
(F+1)/2

That's the same thing. More points of variability *during* a flexible, mechanical spell design procedure. In the *end*, you could then simplify everything down to F/X+B, as you said… but there's no reason to do so until the very end. It's totally appropriate for Armor to be (F+1)/2 during design, and then 'F/2+0.5' in play (just as one example, ignoring rounding/etc.). Again, I don't know if this additional flexibility in creation is valuable, but there's no value in premature simplification.

Perhaps discuss drain house rules elsewhere and get BTT maybe?

I personally think X/0 splits are perfectly fine. For example, why not be a mystic adept with 0 for mage skills, that's on the way of the counterspelling, has it improved to 9 and mainly provides magical defense for his team? I think this is perfectly viable, and he pays 10 Karma extra to be able to take counterspelling in the first place. What't not to like?

No, clearly you don't.

You can't use Improved Ability for Magical Skills - only Combat, Physical, Technical, Social, and Vehicle skills. Otherwise I'd do a X/1 split and pump up Spellcasting.

The notable exception here is Counterspelling, available as "Sorcerous Parry" for Mystical Adepts with "Way of the Magician".

That's still not Improved Ability, though.

Fair enough. It's still a great adept power, and one not known by many players, so I felt like pointing it out.

(Counterspelling improved to 9 crossed out, as per Neraph's correction).

I don't think the Mys Ad would be able to access the mage side of things (including Counterspelling) without 1 point of Magic allocated to that side of the split. Might make the concept quite expensive BP-wise, but he can always take the Aspected Magician quality to offset some of the cost. Personally I don't see 5BP (or 10 karma) extra to just get counterspelling unbalanced, but I just don't see this as the way it would work by RAW.

After all, you wouldn't let a Mys Ad with 0 Magic allocated to the Mage side of the split use Spellcasting and Summoning, would you?

I never said to use Improved Ability, as indicated with "way" i of course meant the Sorcerous Parry ability. I really thought Neraph knew that one

Midas, why do you think it would not work? What you maybe could not do without magic score allocated to the mage side would be counterspelling active spells that are being sustained ('dispeling'), but providing counterspelling for teammates has nothing to do with that score at all. Of course Spellcasting and Summoning wouldn't work, but those are linked to the magic attribute. Counterspelling is special in that it just provides extra dice for anyone protected, so it works just fine.

Magic Skill Use requires a Magic Attribute of 1 for use. Since you do not have a Magic Allocation of at least 1 on the Sorcery Side, then you cannot use any such skills. If it was otherwise, then Adepts could always use Counterspelling, and they specifically cannot. Ergo, You need at least a 1 on the sorcery side of the Adept/Sorcery split to use Counterspelling.

This is not a RAW requirement TJ.

By strict RAW... a mystic adept has full access to all sorcery and conjuring skills. An adept/mystic adept doesn't even have access to assensing and astral combat *unless* he has the astral perception power (which grants him access to the skills).

The *ONLY* magical skills automatically available to adepts are arcana and enchanting. (and again, mystic specifically adds 6 more, and astral perception grants the other 2 related to astral).


The text for this puts no such requirement on the mystic adept. It is fully within RAW to make a counterspelling specialist who can't cast a single spell or summon a spirit. (sorcerer's path mystic adept with say a 0/5 split... and 3 ranks in that improved counterspelling bringing him to 6(9)). Since his only ability is to protect his team... I don't see this as a huge problem in and of itself.


I'm not arguing it goes against the spirit of the rules... but RAI is not RAW. And there is a lot of room for people to argue within reason that it is even RAI that they can spend points on these skills without investing. (say a mystic adept who's sole focus was counterspelling and banishing(attacks of will)... with good face abilities (charisma + attack of will == win).

Such a character would be gimping himself quite severely by not taking advantage of his spellcasting abilities when so many things are done easier with spells than powers/cyber... so I don't see much abuse in this. The MORE counterspelling available the less overpowering magic becomes.