http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info...eviews_id=91493

I liked this preview a lot more. More on mechanics and I like where these mechanics are going. I am actually getting excited to see where all this leading. Accuracy and limits look like they are fun. And thankfully it seems like this is exactly the sort of new edition I wanted to see, one where they polish off the rough spots and streamline things rather than re-write things. So yay!

That was Mr. Hardy's main idea from Day Zero.

Limits means no more uber 1 rating attribute skript kiddies! Yay!

Does it also mean you can achieve... a limit break?



-k

Previews definetly pushing me over the new edition fence. Like seeing clear examples along with the rules.
It's got me really wanting to see the limt rules in action.
Only pet peeve is crazy face staring at me from the top of page.

Perhaps it will make more sense when the full book comes out but...when using edge there doesn't seem to be a reason to ever use Blitz when you can use Seize the Initiative. Loving everything else.

I didn't notice it until you pointed it out. Damn you. But then art and layout isn't finalized so this may change right?

I will also mention that there didn't seem to be any ambiguity in anything I read. The mechanics were pretty cut and dry with good examples. If they keep that going throughout, perhaps we can avoid many of the ... uh.. disagreements that pop up here and over on the Catalyst forums about various rules and gear interpretations.

Does that mean that you can't use Second Chance at all, if the first result is a (critical) glitch? Or does that mean that you can use Second Chance to re-roll your dice to get more hits, even if the first result is a (critical) glitch, but the end-result will still count as a (critical) glitch (but with more hits).

In SR 4 there are three popular interpretations of this, and with this wording, there seem to be still two popular interpretations left.
I hope they will clarify this before they print it.

Right now, it's just SR4 with SR3 initiative rules and "limits".
And how the limits work sucks in my opinion. One example in the PDF states how some guy has a high physical limit because of his high BOD and STR. Now, on the same page it says that sneaking is subject to the physical limit.
So, my infiltration tests are now limited by my muscle mass? What the hell? How about palming? Are good pickpockets going to look like Hulk now?

ARRRRR, I'M GOING TO SNATCH THAT PURSE OUT OF YOUR POCKET! HULK SMASH!

My guess is that you add all 4 physical attributes together and then divide them by some factor to calculate the physical limit.

So agility would go in there too. Still orks and trolls woud have an advantage in palming and sneaking, depending on how often a diceroll really reaches the physical limit.

They'll have a high limit, but if they don't have the agility or skills, their dice pool isn't going to be very good.

Which while not ideal is still better than D&D 3.5's barbarian...
"RAAA I'M A BARBARIAN, I CRUSH MY ENEMIES AND DRINK OUT OF THEIR SKULLS..." *pinky out* "...with my grandmother every Tuesday."
Barbarians needed charisma (it mattered for Intimidation, and a handful of class abilities) which inevitably meant that they had a penchant for Diplomacy.

That is a problem under SR too in parts, at least under SR3 a high charisma meant a lower TN for intimidation . .

Don't forget all the highly intelligent street samurai -.-

I'm not saying that a high charisma shouldn't help, it's more a problem of "being big and scary not helping." Which doesn't happen in SR (because we have things like notoriety and modifiers for brandishing weapons). In D&D 3.5 the only way for a barbarian to be scary was to also be diplomatic.

I wonder why not just use the linked attribute as the limit? Or some multiple of it?

Though I can see how strength, body and even willpower would be important for, say, infiltration. Not so much for palming, though.

Uh... in 3.5 you got a +4 modifier to intimidate checks for every size bigger than your opponent you are. It may not come up very frequently, but it is there. Also Barbarians had Intimidate as a class skill, but not diplomacy. Attributes don't play as large of a role in skill checks in 3.5 as they do in shadowrun, for most skills you're looking at a +1-3 bonus from attribute, but as high as +23 from skill in a skill you are trained in, and even higher if you focus in it.

Also you mentioned charisma helping "some other" barbarian class abilities. Unless you're referring to other skills (which hardly count as abilities), then that is blatantly untrue. Even if you are referring to skills, your only other cha based option is Handle Animal, hardly a go-to ability for all barbarians, or one that is needed for the archtype to function.

I wouldn't consider a barbarian with even a +3 diplomacy mod very diplomatic (and most barbarians won't even be that high, maybe a +1 at the outside), but I would consider a barbarian with a +25 or so intimidate modifier very intimidating. So I really don't see what your complaint here is that can't be applied to literally any system that uses attributes as a component of their skill system, and most of them with far more truth to it than yours.




Anyway, on the topic, I could see the limits working, but... yeah having Social/Physical/Mental seems like a really stupid and arbitrary setup. The problem of the big strong guy having a higher limit at agility based things is already shown. What would make more sense is just making the linked attribute your limit. It gets rid of the need for an extra notation, removes 3 extra stats off the character sheet, accomplishes the same intended person, and makes everything make far more sense.

I do have other reservations/potential problems, but I need to see more before I can say for sure whether they're there. There's been concerns voiced elsewhere about a pistol being better for sniping and a sniper rifle being better in close combat, due to the accuracy limits, but if in the combat section they handle penalties with threshold modifiers instead of dice pool modifiers, that complaint is untrue. I can also see some wonkiness in the teamwork test rules depending on what they allow to be a teamwork test. (Example: Imagine the group stealthing through a building as a teamwork test. Your group is actually stealthier for having an extra guy along who may or may not have any sort of training, than if it was just one guy alone). I also have reservations about the extended test rules, but that's mostly because those rules are exactly the same as SR4A, and I don't like how they play out there either.

From my experience in running and playing in 4th, I think the basic rules changes will be a good thing. I really like that essence figures into the limit for Social interactions. Limits as a whole sound really good. Not only from a mechanics and gameplay standpoint, but also from a character building standpoint. Want to make a cybered monster? There's some immediate satisfaction in seeing how much (numerically, and functionally) you surpass mortals by increasing your limits.

I think there are too few details yet on Initiative and the rest of the rules to make major judgement calls.

I hope we will see universal rules applied in functionally the same way throughout the different archtypes, to cut down on complications. I get the feeling from the sidebars that we'll end up with tons of optional rules to add or subtract complication from the ruleset. Good deal.

As to limits being set by a combination of physical/mental/orsocial stats seems to make sense. To tie into the physical debate, there are very few tasks that require raw application of Strength, and don't incorporate reaction or agility. Having a low agility or reaction might mean that the physical task you are well suited for doesn't succeed as well because of your clumsiness, even though it's mostly a strength based activity. The opposite does make less sense (pickpocketing with 1 Agility, and having a 4 or so limit) What it does mean is that you are unlikely to pull it off in the first place.

We also don't know how limits are calculated yet.

If Cyber-Monsters get Problems for every Point of Essence they lose, Magicians and Technomancers have to get Problems for every Point of their special Attribute too . .

If you are just parroting stuff from the temple of St. Frank, why not simply drop a link?


More on topic, I'd like to point out that the base Accuracy does indeed seem to be 4, just like in the demos...

I remember there being talk of going back to the system where Initiative determined the number of passes you acted in, not a piece of gear or ability that just flat out gives you extra IP's. Last I heard the way it was going to work was similar to: Step 1: Everyone acts in initiative order, Step 2: once everybody has gone once subtract 10 from everyone's Initiative, Step 3: those that still have a positive initiative get to go again (in order), Step 4: repeat steps 2-3 until nobody goes (subtracting 10 reduces everyone's initiative to 0 or below).

So, if that is true (and I might be remember some stuff wrong), then using Edge to Blitz would increase your initiative so that you can not only act sooner in the initiative order, but would also likely give you more passes. From the way "Initiative Dice" is written, it seems like spells and abilities that formerly gave you extra initiative passes now will give you the bonus initiative dice (and using Edge to Blitz simply raises it straight to the cap of 5).

Yes, the SR3 Initiative System was not meant for Edge.
And all Initiative Enhancements under SR3 always only gave more dice to roll to achieve higher results with.
So in the SR3 Initiative System the first main goal always was to get reaction+xD6 minimum to be at least 11, so if you were not wounded you always went twice at least.
It made it very hard to reach higher levels in initiative, because you needed to seriously boost reaction in addition to just ini dice to get to act more often reliably.
usually, a base reaction of 9 and 2D6 were the norm.
because 9+2=11==going twice and 9+12=21==going thrice on a really good roll and usually still going at least twice even when wounded.

The bit on buying hits is a bit vogue, without going into any kind of detail on when buying hits is allowed. 4e specifically said you can't buy hits, say, in the middle of a combat. 5e's current phrasing seems worse.

I wonder if devices will ever be in Opposed Tests, and if they ever are, how will their limits work.

As previously said in the thread, Second Chance Edge usage has an incredibly vague wording. Same goes for Smackdown: the example used doesn't make much sense, you can still very well attempt an Automative Mechanic Test even if you have no ranks in the skill.

SR4A, p. 126. Automotive Mechanic is a no default skill. I see no reason why it should be different in SR5?

It says "anytime that a glitch would have an impact on the outcome." Combat most definitely is one of those situations.

Unless a glitch on a firearms roll doesn't jam the gun (etc. etc.) at your table...

First of the idea of "Teamwork Stealth" I really really like. That being said, there'd still have to be some kind of limit on stuff like that due to an internal circumstance (bulk, colors, who knows).

Second, the Extended Tests I admit to liking, but what I do not like is the limits on them. It's not RAW but we tend to use a linked attribute or Intuition as the maximum limit to die roles.

Dude.... http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?sid=aef61a7...p=327852#327852

One thing that bothers me is that guns within the same category will have different accuracy stats, making some guns clearly superior to others (ex. the Defiance has 4 ACC and the other shotgun in the preview has 6.) I guess nobody cares about balance, but it looks like we'll be on the path to superweapons just like in every other edition.

Damnit, Catalyst, quit jamming modern day crap into SR and pretending like it makes sense.

"Sir, we're going to need you to turn off your cyberheart for takeoff..."

"Ghruk!!!"

Hmm, something that was just pointed out to me on a german board:

so edge is cheap and refills much faster now and adept powers and ware help with that?

Wait until you see the Lifestyle rules. They make absolutely no distinction between a two-story three-bedroom house with a basement and a second-story two-bedroom condo with a loft.

Totally ridiculous.

not sure if serious . .

Amen. I don't want to play a law/crime simulator with magic and cyber. Just give me enough info to deal with a situation at an airport, I don't need the rules for TSA groping.

Also, you think in that world people don't use the matrix the whole time on a flight? What else are they gonna do, read? LOL

And if you chose to interpret such stuff this literally, it's your own fault.
They require you to deactivate the boosted reflexes and that cyberspur before boarding? How is that different from the current established setting?
Data jacks on the other hand are most assuredly not required to be deactivated.
Deactivator bracelets are a thing for I don't know how long now, and now you're griping about this?

Look harder, maybe you'll find more inconsequential details to throw a fit over ...

This is why you get a Rigger on your team(aka, someone at the table plays one) with a lot of proper licensing due to a past bunch of work, a plane, and the ability and allowance to fly it places in the world. Besides, they're more comfy and the food's better. (That being said, I'm fine if there's rules for 6th World TSA, but I don't have to use them as written.)

I had mentioned already I'm overall pretty positive. I'll have to see more though of course. Like anything, I'm sure that there will be rules that I end up disagreeing heavily with, but when those come about, I change or cut them. I sorta go into a new edition of an RPG knowing full well that I am not going to agree with every rule. I never had, and I don't think I ever will. For me it's more or less a case of 'Is a majority of the book something I can make work?'' If not, then I'll continue with older editions is all. If it is? Awesome, I'll change what I don't like and continue.

AFAIK deactivator bracelets have never been, but "you really do not WANT to activate this" bracelets date back to the original Harlequin .

PS: And you have to admit, the assumption of common sense in airport controls requires some suspension of disbelief...

So do I read this right as every box of damage you take is a -1 wound penalty?
I understand that the wound penalties need to be larger with skills going to 12 but removing gear giving bonus dice compounds the issue. While I agree that combat should be scary I see characters becoming useless quickly in combat.

No, it has been simplificated (complified?).
A row is 3 boxes, Mikado, so business as usual, and every 3 boxes -1.

Well maybe guns will also have different damage in the same category, so you'll have cheaper and more powerful guns that are less accurate and more expensive less powerful guns that are more accurate and still deal more damage in the capable hands for it.

It's "row", not "box".

You know it's been like that since second edition, right? There was something similar in NAGNA, for instance. Deactivating all but the basic function of cyberware (like, say, your heartbeat, or the basic functions of an arm) for airline travel has been in the setting for a couple of decades.

I am fine being wrong... And I did not look at the previous sneak-peeks nor am I reading the fluff stories leading up to the SR5 release so I do not know if it was covered there.

When I look at my SR4 character sheet I "see" 2 "rows" of condition monitors: Physical and Stun. In addition, I never heard of anyone referring to 3 boxes of damage being a "row" in SR4.

So saying "row" is not the same as "box" is just as misleading as the original sentence. At least Bannockburn gave me better information...

The information you're looking for is in the paragraph above the one you referred to
There it is defined how a condition monitor looks.

Yup... I see it nowThank you Bannockburn... again....
Not sure how I missed it the first time. Not sure why they would waste space splitting up the monitors like that. Seems useless to me. Just say every 3 boxes of damage is a -1 and move on... Why split up the monitor?

No idea, personally.
As pure speculation: Maybe to avoid confusion with the official character sheets? I seem to remember that there the condition monitors already were displayed as rows of three, but I haven't used one in ages.

I have definitely seen condition monitors split into rows in official statblocks.

SR4 record sheet p. 350 ... at least in my limited edition

Already complained about that one. Apparently people like that. *shrug*

In SR1 through SR4 guns in the same category had different ammo capacities, concealability ratings, inherent recoil and armor piercing modifiers, rates of fire, costs, and even damage codes. This is simply one more statistic added in, to give guns even more variance.

Gun A might have an Accuracy of 4, but an ammo capacity of 30 or the ability to fire Burst Fire, while Gun B has an Accuracy of 6 but only holds 10 rounds and fires only Semi-Auto. So which is better? And if you only have a dice pool of 10 or 12, does it matter?

And yes, at the end of the day, there will be some weapons that will be more valuable to a highly skilled individual. Just like in real life, there are some guns (or whatever item) which are simply better, are more accurate, are more finely crafted and precision made. Pick up a Stradivarius and some cheap k-mart violin. In the hands of an amateur, there's going to be no difference. In the hands of a master, there's a world of difference. And it's because of the craftsmanship of the Strad. (I don't know actual guns well enough to make an apt comparison, but I know from listening to gun nuts talk that there is one).

That's ok Stahl, we're not certain if half the replies from you guys are serious either

The Strad analogy I think is great. One could use about anything here really. I mean a master keyboard player could probably make a little red Casio keytar sound pretty good but will make an enormous Korg setup sound even better. Hell, when I was doing some very amateur archery, I can damn well say I felt a WORLD Of difference between a crappy little bow they had at my school and when I shot a precision-crafted hunting bow.

I mostly want to just see that there's some good variance in all the types of gear-low, middle, and high.