So I'm going to go off on a tangent.
In another topic, the discussion came up of how tying armor to body made body too important for survival. On the other hand, removing armor from body makes body a really weak stat. It was then pointed out that's pretty much the exact situation that Willpower is in now.
So I had a thought-Armor is still tied to body. But Body and Willpower are now derived stats. Body is the average of your Strength+Agility+Reaction, and Willpower is the average of your Logic+Intuition+Charisma. Now you no longer spend BP/Karma just increasing your soak pools, you instead increase other things that actually do something, and you get a little extra in your soak pool for free along with it.
Just a random thought I had that I think may actually work surprisingly well.
Full Version: 5th Ed. Open Design & Playtest
I'd probably then tie encumbrance to strength. Strength is another one of those "useless stats" for many characters.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Aug 27 2011, 06:33 AM) 
I'd probably then tie encumbrance to strength. Strength is another one of those "useless stats" for many characters.
For many characters, but not all. Strength has a tie to several skills, and has logical justification to be tied to a couple others if needed. Besides, would you also have damage resistance go off strength? How about magical resistance? While I don't mind the idea of combining Strength and Body (I've suggested it in the past), it doesn't really leave anything logical to do with Willpower. But making both derived attributes has a certain elegance that solves several problems at once.
Alright, you got me. I'm convinced that 1-6 with a target number of 5 isn't ideal. The range in hits isn't enough. I do think that lowering the target number to 4 would be a good place to start. That means each die has a 50% chance of a hit, which feels right.
I considered this idea for a game system once, a long while ago, so I'll bring it up here.
Let's assume that the scale was instead 1-5 with a target number of 4. It would then look a lot like a five star system, ranging from very poor to very good. 3 would remain professional or average.
That makes the actual range of dice in pool (before augmentations and modifiers, and excluding defaulting) 2 through 10, with 6 being average.
That means that the average results would also fall on a scale of 1 through 5. So a threshold of 3 is something that an average professional could do 50% of the time, whereas a threshold of 5 is something that the best of the best could do 50% of the time, but the average person could only do 10% of the time.
I choose 1-5 only for the elegance of 1 though 5 always having meaning. 1 though 6 or 1 though 7 could also work. I'm just uncomfortable with the dice pool getting too large.
I considered this idea for a game system once, a long while ago, so I'll bring it up here.
Let's assume that the scale was instead 1-5 with a target number of 4. It would then look a lot like a five star system, ranging from very poor to very good. 3 would remain professional or average.
That makes the actual range of dice in pool (before augmentations and modifiers, and excluding defaulting) 2 through 10, with 6 being average.
That means that the average results would also fall on a scale of 1 through 5. So a threshold of 3 is something that an average professional could do 50% of the time, whereas a threshold of 5 is something that the best of the best could do 50% of the time, but the average person could only do 10% of the time.
I choose 1-5 only for the elegance of 1 though 5 always having meaning. 1 though 6 or 1 though 7 could also work. I'm just uncomfortable with the dice pool getting too large.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 27 2011, 01:36 AM)
Besides, would you also have damage resistance go off strength?
No no no. Damage resistance is Body + Armor. Armor is limited by strength.
So people want a scale of diminishing returns for high skill ratings. But the current cost model basically does that already. Skill rating 4 -> 5 costs 10 karma for +1 die. Skill rating 5 -> 6 costs 12 karma for +1 die. That's diminishing returns. At some point the amount of dice gained by karma wouldn't be a very attractive amount anymore.
A skill scale up to say, 9 or 12 does sound as if it could work well - enough difference between beginners and experts. And at CharGen you should be limited to say, rating 5.
Then tie bonuses to (skill * 2) or (skill + attribute), because your general adeptness with a skill determines how well you'll be able to exploit situational advantages.
A skill scale up to say, 9 or 12 does sound as if it could work well - enough difference between beginners and experts. And at CharGen you should be limited to say, rating 5.
Then tie bonuses to (skill * 2) or (skill + attribute), because your general adeptness with a skill determines how well you'll be able to exploit situational advantages.
QUOTE (Kesendeja @ Aug 26 2011, 08:08 PM)
We limit the number of extra dice to no more than your skill.
We have been playing with this as well, testing it out in one of our campaigns. It is not a very popular test. Though honestly, it has not been a big issue in the first place (we have very few characters with high dice pool adds, and none that add more than Skill + Stat in additional dice; most far less). It effectively eliminates things like Smartlink and Specialization (the two most common adds) for anyone with less than 4 Ranks in Skill.
Maybe the best way to go is not to put a limit on how many dice you can get (which creates more rules overhead during play), but to cut down on the amount of bonuses that exist/can be stacked?
Restricting situational bonuses is awkward, but equipment-, augmentation- and ability-derived bonuses could be reduced a bit.
Reducing the number of things that stack with each other might also stimulate diversity in character "builds" - not everyone taking the same pile of qualities and metagenic traits to achieve a big dice pool.
Restricting situational bonuses is awkward, but equipment-, augmentation- and ability-derived bonuses could be reduced a bit.
Reducing the number of things that stack with each other might also stimulate diversity in character "builds" - not everyone taking the same pile of qualities and metagenic traits to achieve a big dice pool.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Aug 27 2011, 07:21 AM)
No no no. Damage resistance is Body + Armor. Armor is limited by strength.
Ah, so make both derived attributes just damage resistance and pass armor off to strength? I guess I could see that working.
QUOTE
So people want a scale of diminishing returns for high skill ratings. But the current cost model basically does that already. Skill rating 4 -> 5 costs 10 karma for +1 die. Skill rating 5 -> 6 costs 12 karma for +1 die. That's diminishing returns. At some point the amount of dice gained by karma wouldn't be a very attractive amount anymore.
That diminishing returns scales up too quickly is the problem. It's fine for a rank going from 1-6, but if the intent is to increase average skill thresholds, then it gets too expensive too quickly. For example if the intent was to remove the skill cap, but above 12 is considered legendary, to get there you are spending 4+4+6+8+10+12+14+16+18+20+22+24 = 158 karma. Which is way too much for a single skill, imo. What I want to see is skills made cheaper so skills can be progressed higher for roughly the same cost as they are now (ie getting to 9 dice costs about as much as 6 does now. 12 dice costs about as much as 7 now, with really heavy diminishing returns kicking in at or shortly after that point).
The way I see it working is 1-3=Novice/Amateur, 4-6 = Professional, 7-9=Expert, 10-12=Serious badass, 13+ = Legendary. So most runner skills should be expected in the 4-6 range, while within their specialization they start within the 7-9 range, and eventually progress beyond that to the 10-12 or higher range.
QUOTE
Then tie bonuses to (skill * 2) or (skill + attribute), because your general adeptness with a skill determines how well you'll be able to exploit situational advantages.
This makes those bonus dice scale really high if you're going with a higher/nonexistant skill cap. Like you don't need to allow a 8 bonus dice for a guy with 4 skill. There shouldn't really be bonuses that big even available.
QUOTE
We have been playing with this as well, testing it out in one of our campaigns. It is not a very popular test. Though honestly, it has not been a big issue in the first place (we have very few characters with highdice pool adds, and none that add more than Skill + Stat in additional dice; most far less). It effectively eliminates things like Smartlink and Specialization (the two most common adds) for anyone with less than 4 Ranks in Skill.
Well personally I wouldn't make specialization count as bonus dice, and would have it allow an extra bonus die.
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Aug 27 2011, 09:33 AM)
Maybe the best way to go is not to put a limit on how many dice you can get (which creates more rules overhead during play), but to cut down on the amount of bonuses that exist/can be stacked?
Restricting situational bonuses is awkward, but equipment-, augmentation- and ability-derived bonuses could be reduced a bit.
Reducing the number of things that stack with each other might also stimulate diversity in character "builds" - not everyone taking the same pile of qualities and metagenic traits to achieve a big dice pool.
Restricting situational bonuses is awkward, but equipment-, augmentation- and ability-derived bonuses could be reduced a bit.
Reducing the number of things that stack with each other might also stimulate diversity in character "builds" - not everyone taking the same pile of qualities and metagenic traits to achieve a big dice pool.
I have always preferred this approach.
This is one thing I think D&D did well by giving bonuses types, and bonuses of the same type didn't stack with each other.
QUOTE (Trillinon @ Aug 27 2011, 06:33 PM)
This is one thing I think D&D did well by giving bonuses types, and bonuses of the same type didn't stack with each other.
It's a 50/50 thing. Bonus types is a good idea, but they gave too many different bonus types, so they wound up meaningless. When you can have an Enhancement, Inherent, Sacred, Profane, Deflection, Natural, Morale, and Competence bonus, and probably another dozen I'm not remembering offhand, having bonus types is actually pretty meaningless. If you make like 2-3 bonus types, and don't have any one source get much beyond 2-3 bonus, it can work.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 27 2011, 01:37 PM)
It's a 50/50 thing. Bonus types is a good idea, but they gave too many different bonus types, so they wound up meaningless. When you can have an Enhancement, Inherent, Sacred, Profane, Deflection, Natural, Morale, and Competence bonus, and probably another dozen I'm not remembering offhand, having bonus types is actually pretty meaningless. If you make like 2-3 bonus types, and don't have any one source get much beyond 2-3 bonus, it can work.
You forgot Alchemical, Luck, and Shield.
But yes. There are way to many different types (sacred and profane should have been merged, for instance). Of the remainder, not all of them are featured for the same things (i.e. no alchemical bonus to armor class).
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Aug 27 2011, 10:13 PM)
You forgot Alchemical, Luck, and Shield.
But yes. There are way to many different types (sacred and profane should have been merged, for instance). Of the remainder, not all of them are featured for the same things (i.e. no alchemical bonus to armor class).
But yes. There are way to many different types (sacred and profane should have been merged, for instance). Of the remainder, not all of them are featured for the same things (i.e. no alchemical bonus to armor class).
But many of them apply to everything. I also forgot Dodge, which is another AC unique bonus. But all these different bonuses are part of why D&D's skill system doesn't work (part of, the other part being d20 really doesn't lend itself to a good granular curve for skills.), and leads to really silly high bonuses for a lot of things. Luck, Morale, Competence, Sacred, Profane, and Enhancement for example are all pretty universal, and can be applied to anything you want. An argument could also be made for alchemical (Why can't I make an alchemical substance that makes me harder to hit?). Oh yeah, untyped is another bonus, that stacks with everything, including itself.
But if you were going to make bonus types for shadowrun, how would you classify them? What bonus types would you use that are broad enough to be used for more than one thing, and so you aren't just making a new bonus type for every new thing? The stuff that grants bonuses in shadowrun tend to be pretty diverse, and could easily fall into the same trap D&D did. I think I'd prefer just leaving them all untyped, and limiting how much of it you can take advantage of.
It may be simpler, but I think there is merit in at least trying to analyze where different bonuses come from so we can better keep things from stacking that really shouldn't.
The easiest way to do this might be to take a character build with an absurd dice pool, and try to break it down.
The easiest way to do this might be to take a character build with an absurd dice pool, and try to break it down.
Skill Bonus, Attribute Bonus, Tool Bonus, Assistance Bonus, Situational Bonus?
I intentionally didn't use "implant" or "magical", because that's exactly the kind of thing we'd be trying to break apart into a better division.
Also, I think Situational bonuses should stack with everything, while all the others shouldn't stack with their own category.
I intentionally didn't use "implant" or "magical", because that's exactly the kind of thing we'd be trying to break apart into a better division.
Also, I think Situational bonuses should stack with everything, while all the others shouldn't stack with their own category.
A good start, though Tool might be just a little too broad.
For example, with persuasion, something that works using pheromones should stack with something that works based on analyzing a person's psychology. The latter augments your ability to use a skill, the former alters the target.
Basically, it's not exactly the source of the effect that matters, but it's results. Similar results shouldn't stack.
For example, with persuasion, something that works using pheromones should stack with something that works based on analyzing a person's psychology. The latter augments your ability to use a skill, the former alters the target.
Basically, it's not exactly the source of the effect that matters, but it's results. Similar results shouldn't stack.
QUOTE (Trillinon @ Aug 27 2011, 11:45 PM)
A good start, though Tool might be just a little too broad.
For example, with persuasion, something that works using pheromones should stack with something that works based on analyzing a person's psychology. The latter augments your ability to use a skill, the former alters the target.
Basically, it's not exactly the source of the effect that matters, but it's results. Similar results shouldn't stack.
For example, with persuasion, something that works using pheromones should stack with something that works based on analyzing a person's psychology. The latter augments your ability to use a skill, the former alters the target.
Basically, it's not exactly the source of the effect that matters, but it's results. Similar results shouldn't stack.
Well with your average pornomancer, how many places is he getting his bonus from? Isn't it typically 2 pieces of cyber (that have notes saying explicitly they stack), plus empathy software, plus situational modifiers and adept powers?
By the restrictions being discussed, all of that would still stack. You'd have these nice neat definitions without actually fixing anything.
Edit: Another different topic to bring up: Right now, the technical active skills are really pretty far spread out, and a good chunk of them have no skill group for ease of purchase. Here's the list:
[ Spoiler ]
Is there anything in there that could be condensed or shifted around? Another skillgroup that could be added that would make sense? Like Chemistry shifted under Biotech? Or Forgery put under cracking and made logic based (since Forgery is pretty much all electronic these days). Maybe Armorer mixed in with Mechanic, and a couple of the mechanic skills combined?
Also, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that one goal was to make other party members more capable of taking part in cybercombat. What about making a Matrix skillgroup with Computer, Data Search, and Cybercombat, and Cracking Group would be Hacking, Electronic Warfare, and Forgery. Not sure what to do with the hardware and software skill at that point, but maybe rolling it in with locksmith and keeping it as a individual skill would make it a little more desirable. The Matrix Skillgroup makes it a bit easier for your general person to pick up the single skillgroup and be competent in general matrix actions, and be able to help out in the matrix at need, while not being a hacker himself. I suppose you could leave software under the matrix group, but I don't see why someone picking up a skillgroup for basic competency would also get software design, on the other hand software design isn't a hacking only thing. Maybe leave that as a lone skill as well.
So it would end up looking something like:
[ Spoiler ]
Hmm, it is rather tricky to decide what does and doesn't go together. While it opens the door to sickeningly big dice pools, a lot of the things pornomancers use do make sense to use together. I tried to deconstruct one to prove my classification reduces how bad it is, and I didn't succeed.
Perhaps part of the "cure" is to cut down heavily on things that provide way-too-big bonuses, like Empathy software. A decent size for a bonus is +2, for extreme things +4.
Anyway, I do think that if you're going to classify things, your classifications need to be based on how things work, not just the end result. The reason is that classifying similar things together is just more intuitive, making it easier to learn and remember.
Perhaps part of the "cure" is to cut down heavily on things that provide way-too-big bonuses, like Empathy software. A decent size for a bonus is +2, for extreme things +4.
Anyway, I do think that if you're going to classify things, your classifications need to be based on how things work, not just the end result. The reason is that classifying similar things together is just more intuitive, making it easier to learn and remember.
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Aug 28 2011, 02:21 AM)
Perhaps part of the "cure" is to cut down heavily on things that provide way-too-big bonuses, like Empathy software. A decent size for a bonus is +2, for extreme things +4.
The 1-6 Rating scale is a legacy from the older SR system with variable TN. There is no reason to keep it in a fixed TN system.
QUOTE (Traul @ Aug 28 2011, 03:07 AM)
The 1-6 Rating scale is a legacy from the older SR system with variable TN. There is no reason to keep it in a fixed TN system.
Especially if the plan is to change up the way software in general works (ie instead of 50 different 1-6 programs for hacking you can just get a relatively cheap hacking suite that enables most of the hacking actions). And do we really need 6 different grades of medkit if everyone just gets a grade 6 one anyway?
I agree. The existence of ever-inflating DPs for vastly lower costs (Personalized Grip? Visual Enhancement?) totally devalues skills that are capped at 6 (7, 8 ), unless the system includes limits based on natural skill or other such mechanics. It's easier just to allow accelerating costs to soft-limit advancement. At the same time, I like the idea of 'enabling-only' gear, or at least much smaller bonuses. If a smartlink is only +2, nothing should be +6. If blindfire is only -6… 
Is anyone considering back-borrowing from Eclipse Phase? It largely (not fully) has enable-only gear, or perhaps that's 'non-rated' gear. Various other issues were also addressed, whether or not *perfectly* is another discussion.
Is anyone considering back-borrowing from Eclipse Phase? It largely (not fully) has enable-only gear, or perhaps that's 'non-rated' gear. Various other issues were also addressed, whether or not *perfectly* is another discussion.
Enable-only might work for that, but what about all the gear that enhances actions that you're able to perform anyway?
On a related note: external, no-Essence costing gear such as goggles/contact lenses shouldn't be better in almost every way than their implant versions such as Cybereyes.
On a related note: external, no-Essence costing gear such as goggles/contact lenses shouldn't be better in almost every way than their implant versions such as Cybereyes.
Yeah, that's where the 'much smaller bonuses' comes in, assuming we even *need* those items.
Jesus, that's for sure. Functionally, they're the same; that's the problem.
Jesus, that's for sure. Functionally, they're the same; that's the problem.
I can live with goggles etc. doing some of the same things as cybereyes, but not equally good. Some ideas:
* Cybereyes and cyberears have absolute flare and sound compensation built in - they're metal, they can take it. (Anything that could faze them would actually burn out meat eyes and ruin external gear.)
* Activating functions of implants goes faster than activating those functions in external gear.
* Maximum bonus on implants is higher.
* Small/nonobvious externals have very limited capacity.
* Cybereyes might just give some bonus to intimidation (unblinking...)
* Cybereyes and cyberears have absolute flare and sound compensation built in - they're metal, they can take it. (Anything that could faze them would actually burn out meat eyes and ruin external gear.)
* Activating functions of implants goes faster than activating those functions in external gear.
* Maximum bonus on implants is higher.
* Small/nonobvious externals have very limited capacity.
* Cybereyes might just give some bonus to intimidation (unblinking...)
Or if sticking with the free/simple/complex action system, make non-cybered vision/sound enhancements a simple action to activate. For example, while in combat it suddenly goes dark so you spend the simple action to go to thermal. Although, I've never seen someone turn on or off a vision/audio enhancement during combat, with the exception of vision magnification.
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Aug 28 2011, 03:10 PM)
I can live with goggles etc. doing some of the same things as cybereyes, but not equally good. Some ideas:
* Cybereyes and cyberears have absolute flare and sound compensation built in - they're metal, they can take it. (Anything that could faze them would actually burn out meat eyes and ruin external gear.)
* Activating functions of implants goes faster than activating those functions in external gear.
* Maximum bonus on implants is higher.
* Small/nonobvious externals have very limited capacity.
* Cybereyes might just give some bonus to intimidation (unblinking...)
* Cybereyes and cyberears have absolute flare and sound compensation built in - they're metal, they can take it. (Anything that could faze them would actually burn out meat eyes and ruin external gear.)
* Activating functions of implants goes faster than activating those functions in external gear.
* Maximum bonus on implants is higher.
* Small/nonobvious externals have very limited capacity.
* Cybereyes might just give some bonus to intimidation (unblinking...)
For some reason I thought that goggles etc were worse already. I thought that they only had a really low capacity, like 1 per rating, where eyes are like 4 per rating.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 28 2011, 09:44 AM)
For some reason I thought that goggles etc were worse already. I thought that they only had a really low capacity, like 1 per rating, where eyes are like 4 per rating.
But when you consider a rating 4 pair of goggles is ¥200 and a rating 4 cyber eyes are ¥1500 and 0.5 essence, the ratings don't really match up anyway.
QUOTE (fazzamar @ Aug 28 2011, 03:57 PM)
But when you consider a rating 4 pair of goggles is ¥200 and a rating 4 cyber eyes are ¥1500 and 0.5 essence, the ratings don't really match up anyway.
True, but I'm more than willing to pay that extra price for 12 extra capacity slots. It's not like the extra nuyen cost actually matters that much for PCs (1500 nuyen is cheap and you're probably spending more on the upgrades you want anyway), and the essence is pretty cheap given what you get out of the package. You could maybe lower the essence cost a little more (maybe .1 per rating?) but I wouldn't call that strictly necessary.
The point is, a zero essence item shouldn't give the same benefits as an essence item, no matter the cost, without some rather significant drawbacks or reduced functionality. More capacity slots really isn't enough of a boost.
QUOTE (LurkerOutThere @ Aug 28 2011, 10:05 AM)
The point is, a zero essence item shouldn't give the same benefits as an essence item, no matter the cost, without some rather significant drawbacks or reduced functionality. More capacity slots really isn't enough of a boost.
This,
Even if you do consider the capacity the deciding factor between whether it's worth it or not to spend the essence, what about the rating 1 cybereyes (4 cap, 0.2 ess, ¥500) vs rating 4 goggles (4 cap, 0 ess, ¥200)?
QUOTE (fazzamar @ Aug 28 2011, 04:28 PM)
This,
Even if you do consider the capacity the deciding factor between whether it's worth it or not to spend the essence, what about the rating 1 cybereyes (4 cap, 0.2 ess, ¥500) vs rating 4 goggles (4 cap, 0 ess, ¥200)?
Even if you do consider the capacity the deciding factor between whether it's worth it or not to spend the essence, what about the rating 1 cybereyes (4 cap, 0.2 ess, ¥500) vs rating 4 goggles (4 cap, 0 ess, ¥200)?
To that I say "Don't buy a rating 1 cybereye". Or maybe get rid of the rating 4 cybereye, and move each one up a rating if it bothers you that much (ie rating 2 with 8 capacity has the cost/essence of rating 1. Rating 3 with 12 becomes rating 2. Rating 4 with 16 becomes rating 3)
And yes, I do think that extra capacity slots are worth the essence cost. Consider, vision enhancement 3 is 3 capacity. An image link (free on the cybereye) is 4 capacity for goggles. Vision Magnification is 2 capacity. Low Light and Thermographic Vision are 2 capacity each. Smartlink is 3 capacity.
So yes, if the guy with the goggles is stuck with 4 capacity, he needs to make some tough choices. He won't have everything he could want on his goggles.
Though I was wrong, I just checked and turns out that goggles can go up to 6 capacity. So he could manage a smart link, low light vision, and flare compensation. However he's missing thermographic vision, image link, vision enhancement, vision magnification, etc.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 28 2011, 11:40 AM)
So yes, if the guy with the goggles is stuck with 4 capacity, he needs to make some tough choices. He won't have everything he could want on his goggles.
So he wears glasses and contact lenses too.
Done.
With all three you can fit all but one vision enhancement available (not counting ultrasound).
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Aug 28 2011, 04:43 PM)
So he wears glasses and contact lenses too.
Done.
With all three you can fit all but one vision enhancement available (not counting ultrasound).
Done.
With all three you can fit all but one vision enhancement available (not counting ultrasound).
Then don't let multiple vision enhancers overlap with each other? I'd say trying to layer them all over top each other causes a lot of mixed signals between them, since they're all trying to do different things, and thus nullify the various bonuses and maybe even imposes a distraction penalty on top of it.
If you DO allow layering like that, then nothing you can ever do will make the cybereyes worth it, except making them basically essence free. Because what advantage for a cybereye makes sense?
Oh and don't forget, those goggles/glasses, still need to get an image link, because in the 6th world, AR is the rule of the day, and you need an image link to interract with it. Cybereyes get it for free. Goggles need to spend an extra 4 capacity slots to get it.
edit: Also contacts only go up to rating 3. So even if they do layer, contacts+glasses+goggles=15, still 1 less than the cybereye, and still having to pay 4 extra for an image link. So you're looking at 11 capacity vs 16. Assuming you allow that best case scenario.
QUOTE (fazzamar @ Aug 28 2011, 04:28 PM)
This,
Even if you do consider the capacity the deciding factor between whether it's worth it or not to spend the essence, what about the rating 1 cybereyes (4 cap, 0.2 ess, ¥500) vs rating 4 goggles (4 cap, 0 ess, ¥200)?
Even if you do consider the capacity the deciding factor between whether it's worth it or not to spend the essence, what about the rating 1 cybereyes (4 cap, 0.2 ess, ¥500) vs rating 4 goggles (4 cap, 0 ess, ¥200)?
Another thing to keep in mind is that capacity for a cybereye and for a worn items is different. A cybereye uses capacity slots. Glasses and contacts can have a number of enhancements equal to their rating execpt Ultrasound which counts as two. So glasses 4 with low light, smartlink, thermographic, vision enhancement 3 you would need a rating 3 cybereye to equal. Throwing on some contacts with image link (which you may or may not need if you use trodes), flare compensation and vision magification would mean you'll need rating 4 cybereyes.
The problem cybereyes have is that they're too expensive for what you get. You get "can't be removed" in exchange for cash and essence. Cybered combat mages do have a bit of an argument for cybereyes so they can cast stunbolts in the dark with fewer mods, but that's it. While essence is cheap to mundanes, .5 essence is still noteworthy. That can be the difference between getting another cyberlimb, skillwires, or reaction enhancers. Heck you can just keep a spare set of glasses and contacts in a smuggling compartment and save .3 essence (nuyen values should be roughly equal) and you now have a smuggling compartment too!
On minor thing that might be "good enough" to make cybereyes and ears show up on people's wish list is that the Vision/Audio Enhancement modification is only available to the cybered versions. +3 to perception checks is quite handy. It think it'll require a bit more to make them worth it, but I think then it's just a matter of making them cheaper essence/nuyenwise and maybe 1-2 more beanies.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 28 2011, 11:48 AM)
edit: Also contacts only go up to rating 3. So even if they do layer, contacts+glasses+goggles=15, still 1 less than the cybereye, and still having to pay 4 extra for an image link. So you're looking at 11 capacity vs 16. Assuming you allow that best case scenario.
At the moment I am failing to find the capacity values of these items, but I did work it out for my current game a few weeks back and that the 'goggles of win' method had enough capacity to do almost everything.
QUOTE
Another thing to keep in mind is that capacity for a cybereye and for a worn items is different. A cybereye uses capacity slots. Glasses and contacts can have a number of enhancements equal to their rating execpt Ultrasound which counts as two. So glasses 4 with low light, smartlink, thermographic, vision enhancement 3 you would need a rating 3 cybereye to equal. Throwing on some contacts with image link (which you may or may not need if you use trodes), flare compensation and vision magification would mean you'll need rating 4 cybereyes.
Source? I've been working on the assumption that worn items take the same capacity as a cybereye. So if the cybereye has to spend 3 capacity on something, I expect the goggles to spend 3 capacity on it as well.
My main reason for thinking this is that under cybereye vision mods, it gives a capacity cost for image link, despite the fact that image link is always free on cybereyes. So it makes sense that capacity was given there for someone who wants it on goggles/glasses. If glasses are instead getting 6 upgrades regardless of their capacity, then yeah that's messed up and needs to change.
QUOTE
At the moment I am failing to find the capacity values of these items, but I did work it out for my current game a few weeks back and that the 'goggles of win' method had enough capacity to do almost everything.
Capacities are listed on SR4a page 332. Contacts go 1-3, goggles and glasses go 1-6. Monocle goes 1-4.
Really, if you just make it so you can't overlap them (you try wearing contacts then glasses over them, see how it works for you), and they have to pay capacity slots like cybereyes, not 1 slot ofr any upgrade they want, and the extra capacity of cybereyes is incredibly meaningful.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 28 2011, 05:02 PM)
Source? I've been working on the assumption that worn items take the same capacity as a cybereye. So if the cybereye has to spend 3 capacity on something, I expect the goggles to spend 3 capacity on it as well.
Shadowrun SR4A Page 332 particularity the line:
QUOTE ('SR4A p. 332)
The ratings of vision sensors and imaging devices equals the number of vision enhancements that can be applied to the device.
Edit: The Image link costing capacity is actually a typo. 4 is the availability of the image link retinal mod. You can tell because everything is moved over one on that line.
QUOTE (Hida Tsuzua @ Aug 28 2011, 05:33 PM)
Shadowrun SR4A Page 332 particularity the line:
Edit: The Image link costing capacity is actually a typo. 4 is the availability of the image link retinal mod. You can tell because everything is moved over one on that line.
Edit: The Image link costing capacity is actually a typo. 4 is the availability of the image link retinal mod. You can tell because everything is moved over one on that line.
Okay so suggested rule change: Number of vision enhancements is changed to number of capacity slots in that line. All vision enhancements have the same capacity cost as a cybereye enhancement.
Because seriously, a pair of glasses being able to get rating 3 vision enhancement, smartlink, low light vision, thermographic vision, image link, and flare comp is retarded. Restrict them to 6 capacity slots rather than 6 full upgrades, the way I always assumed it worked, and prevent layering of sensors (ie no contacts under glasses under goggles, you can only benefit from one at a time), and suddenly cybereyes have a use-because they're better.
Don't go overboard on that. Cybereyes are *small*, so there's no reason big ol' goggles shouldn't potentially have more crap in them. On the other hand, the various enhancements take up arbitrary amounts of 'space'. It's a balance issue, not a physics one. We should strive to walk the line between balance and realism (or realistic-ish-ism).
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Aug 29 2011, 01:31 AM)
Don't go overboard on that. Cybereyes are *small*, so there's no reason big ol' goggles shouldn't potentially have more crap in them. On the other hand, the various enhancements take up arbitrary amounts of 'space'. It's a balance issue, not a physics one. We should strive to walk the line between balance and realism (or realistic-ish-ism).
Cybereyes may be small, but they have more volume. And goggles have the same capacity as glasses, which are smaller... so realism/size really isn't a huge issue there.
I'm saying it should be. Glasses should have less than goggles, contacts should have less still, and cybereyes shouldn't necessarily have *more* than goggles.
As a general mechanic, I'd be good with everything having variable capacity (like cybereyes) as opposed to slots (like glasses). It seems odd that all the visual enhancements are identical in size, for glasses (etc.) Having variable capacity is more consistent with cyberware, sensor packages, vehicle mods, weapon mods, and (some) armor mods.
I'm pretty okay with 'overmodding' as well, if the result is significantly increased/accelerating costs, decreased concealability, and so on. This is sort of what getting higher rating goggles already models, but not very well (IMO).
As a general mechanic, I'd be good with everything having variable capacity (like cybereyes) as opposed to slots (like glasses). It seems odd that all the visual enhancements are identical in size, for glasses (etc.) Having variable capacity is more consistent with cyberware, sensor packages, vehicle mods, weapon mods, and (some) armor mods.
I'm pretty okay with 'overmodding' as well, if the result is significantly increased/accelerating costs, decreased concealability, and so on. This is sort of what getting higher rating goggles already models, but not very well (IMO).
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Aug 29 2011, 01:41 AM)
I'm saying it should be. Glasses should have less than goggles, contacts should have less still, and cybereyes shouldn't necessarily have *more* than goggles.
Then keep cybereyes as they are (rating 1-4 cap 4 per rating), and goggles are capable of going up as high as rating 8? Add on free protective covers and flare comp to cybereyes, so goggles can match the cap of a rating 2 cybereye, but has to pay for a few augments cybereyes get free, and the higher cap cybereye can exceed the goggles by a fair margin (as they should be able to because you're actually paying essence not to mention a higher nuyen cost for it).
The downside to that is it makes lower rating cybereyes useless and a trap. It really makes sense to just make cybereyes always have the edge.
To me the functional advantage isn't how much you can stuff in them. It is that the cybereyes are integral. Yeah, I know, some of you already mentioned that to dismiss it. You did so, I think, too soon.
At the secondary level, goggles shift. They fog up. I wear glasses, and once upon a time was considered a bit of a tough bunny rabbit, and I can tell you that in the skinny even strapped and well designed goggles do not stay where they need to stay. They don't deal well with rain. A sudden cold causes the warm trapped against your skin to fog and even ice the lenses. To be honest I'm not sure how to stick that in the game without adding really wonky and time consuming rules. Fortunately, as I said that's the secondary problem.
The primary problem with goggles and glasses (but not contacts) is that they aren't aligned. They provide a display, and sensors try to track where your eyeballs are looking and align things like highlights and crosshairs. It's trickier than you want to picture getting two images to overlap correctly, one for each eye, so you don't get headaches and touches of nausea as your eyes try to compensate. That can be modeled, easily. All else being equal, cybereyes are +1. Or goggles and glasses are -1, your choice.
The fuzz in there is, as mentioned, contacts. Yet they have their own weakness which re-aligns with the base discussion. You can't stick as many goodies in/on contacts. The non-rules parts are how you can't take them out and clean them. You mention, just as a reminder, that a hard physical jolt that glitches means a contact flies off the eye. (I recall, *ahem* decades ago, a football game on pause while everyone looked for the quarterback's contacts. High school...)
Just my two cents, of course.
At the secondary level, goggles shift. They fog up. I wear glasses, and once upon a time was considered a bit of a tough bunny rabbit, and I can tell you that in the skinny even strapped and well designed goggles do not stay where they need to stay. They don't deal well with rain. A sudden cold causes the warm trapped against your skin to fog and even ice the lenses. To be honest I'm not sure how to stick that in the game without adding really wonky and time consuming rules. Fortunately, as I said that's the secondary problem.
The primary problem with goggles and glasses (but not contacts) is that they aren't aligned. They provide a display, and sensors try to track where your eyeballs are looking and align things like highlights and crosshairs. It's trickier than you want to picture getting two images to overlap correctly, one for each eye, so you don't get headaches and touches of nausea as your eyes try to compensate. That can be modeled, easily. All else being equal, cybereyes are +1. Or goggles and glasses are -1, your choice.
The fuzz in there is, as mentioned, contacts. Yet they have their own weakness which re-aligns with the base discussion. You can't stick as many goodies in/on contacts. The non-rules parts are how you can't take them out and clean them. You mention, just as a reminder, that a hard physical jolt that glitches means a contact flies off the eye. (I recall, *ahem* decades ago, a football game on pause while everyone looked for the quarterback's contacts. High school...)
Just my two cents, of course.
That's fine, Seerow. They're for consumers, and they can be upgraded later. :/
I'm prepared to assume that 2070 has solved all the image processing issues like that, Kirk. Comfort and fit, probably still with us.
Modern contacts don't really get dislodged like that (the old hard ones), though there are always issues with wearing them.
The thing I don't understand is why anyone uses any of these. We have *perfect* direct-to-brain systems; wear a camera (or 4) on your headband. Hashing out the sense/sensor issues once and for all would be a nice move for any '5e' project.
I'm prepared to assume that 2070 has solved all the image processing issues like that, Kirk. Comfort and fit, probably still with us.
Modern contacts don't really get dislodged like that (the old hard ones), though there are always issues with wearing them.
The thing I don't understand is why anyone uses any of these. We have *perfect* direct-to-brain systems; wear a camera (or 4) on your headband. Hashing out the sense/sensor issues once and for all would be a nice move for any '5e' project.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Aug 28 2011, 08:48 PM)
I'm prepared to assume that 2070 has solved all the image processing issues like that, Kirk. Comfort and fit, probably still with us.
I'm not prepared to assume it's solved all the image processing issues like that. Especially given comfort and fit. Oh, it'll be better, but every so often goggles will shift or flex and the image will be a little off.
QUOTE
Modern contacts don't really get dislodged like that (the old hard ones), though there are always issues with wearing them.
Personal experience and a large chunk of money that left my wallet as replacement says you're wrong. It's not common, it happens.
QUOTE
The thing I don't understand is why anyone uses any of these. We have *perfect* direct-to-brain systems; wear a camera (or 4) on your headband. Hashing out the sense/sensor issues once and for all would be a nice move for any '5e' project.
Flavor, mostly. Mages, secondary. Now by my opinion a mage looking at the screen of his goggles is the same as a mage using trodes and looking through cameras (be they on his forehead or on the drone a few miles away), but the fluff is that it /is/ different.
Way back at the beginning I said one of the critical portions of designing "right" is to ensure all three worlds -- meat, magic, and matrix -- are involved. Here is one of those junction points. For meat and matrix you are correct. It's that thing called essence, which is mostly important to the mage, that makes this matter.
Still, stepping back it probably means designers need to avoid the mencken solution. goggles and cameras on the head are clumsy and awkward and not always /right/ when you need them, and that is the indisputable reality. So, make the rules reflect that.
*shrug* Mine never do in soccer, and I've taken some fair head impacts, and I've never heard of it happening to anyone else. And since when do contacts cost a 'fair chunk'? Eh, nevermind. It's only a quibble. I agree about comfort and fit (you saw me agree) for contacts, goggles, whatever. I'm all in favor of cybereyes being a faster, smoother, better connection (compared to external sensor-with-DNI, goggles, etc.). I just don't think the solution should make gear more annoying (it's 2070!), nor worry too much about minor simulationism (it's a cinematic RPG). And there's nothing awkward about a camera on your head. 
It's only a quibble. I agree about comfort and fit (you saw me agree) for contacts, goggles, whatever. I'm all in favor of cybereyes being a faster, smoother, better connection (compared to external sensor-with-DNI, goggles, etc.). I just don't think the solution should make gear more annoying (it's 2070!), nor worry too much about minor simulationism (it's a cinematic RPG). And there's nothing awkward about a camera on your head.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Aug 28 2011, 09:28 PM)
*shrug* Mine never do in soccer, and I've taken some fair head impacts, and I've never heard of it happening to anyone else. And since when do contacts cost a 'fair chunk'? Eh, nevermind. It's only a quibble. I agree about comfort and fit (you saw me agree) for contacts, goggles, whatever. I'm all in favor of cybereyes being a faster, smoother, better connection (compared to external sensor-with-DNI, goggles, etc.). I just don't think the solution should make gear more annoying (it's 2070!), nor worry too much about minor simulationism (it's a cinematic RPG). And there's nothing awkward about a camera on your head.
It's only a quibble. I agree about comfort and fit (you saw me agree) for contacts, goggles, whatever. I'm all in favor of cybereyes being a faster, smoother, better connection (compared to external sensor-with-DNI, goggles, etc.). I just don't think the solution should make gear more annoying (it's 2070!), nor worry too much about minor simulationism (it's a cinematic RPG). And there's nothing awkward about a camera on your head. Its a fair chunk a decade and a half ago when you were paying for contacts that worked with astigmatism.
Aha! See, I said 'old ones'.
Anyway, yes. Cybereyes should be '+1', whatever that means. They should also have sole access to the best fake retinas/whatever, be more jam-proof (assuming a sensor/goggle could be jammed… which I support to a measured degree), and so on.
Anyway, yes. Cybereyes should be '+1', whatever that means. They should also have sole access to the best fake retinas/whatever, be more jam-proof (assuming a sensor/goggle could be jammed… which I support to a measured degree), and so on.
Copy/Pasting from the Armor topic. Spoilering for length. Basically a modification to Softweave armor to help low body characters while not also helping high body characters armor up to tank levels. I'm not happy with the description writeup (which is why it went so long, giving examples/explanation), but hopefully it makes sense.
[ Spoiler ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.