Bad players for making intelligent choices based on available knowledge! Naughty, naughty, wicked players! Shame!

That said, I wouldn't try forcing them to be hackable for no sensible reason. I'd look at other qualities. For example, you got your hand razors? They're weapons, and will trigger alarms at checkpoints everywhere. Are they registered? Muscle augs beyond a certain level could count as lethal weapons as well. If you want to be a walking tank, expect that many jurisdictions will simply flat-out deny you access, and send out alarms to each other. Maybe even attempt to incarcerate you simply for trying, during which incarceration they will remove the bits they don't like you having, replace them with innocuous, weak bits, or if they're feeling nice just put in beacons which trace your every move and automatically alert every security team in the area.

You could also look at detection systems which are not obvious, but do measurements. Remember the scene in the first Ghost in the Shell movie where they measure the mass in an elevator and it doesn't match the people in the elevator? Think of that. Also think of cameras which assess people in UV, visible, IR and radio spectra. Anything which looks anomalous is an alarm and motivates a response - which can be as simple as the next door being closed with a couple of security guards requesting papers, or which could be a small army.

If you're working in a panopticon, use its capabilities to your benefit.

Are you trying to imply that Cyberzombies should have no weaknesses?

They already have several that have absolutely nothing to do with the Matrix. Hotgluing a wireless hotspot to their foreheads doesn't make it any better.

I think he was implying that "punishing" your players for making logical choices is poor GMing. Which I would concur with. Not every single character needs to be vulnerable to every single attack or danger, all of the time. You don't have to "punish" a player for getting an armored jacket by targeting him with a sniper, or "punish" someone for taking a high Willpower by having Harlequin manabolt him. An adept using swords, revolvers, and sawed-off shotguns (or a troll with a baseball bat) is just as "invulnerable" to hacking.

Cyberzombies are physically tough and resistant to magic, and are also cutting edge in every way. A megacorporation that can afford a cyberzombie can afford a top-end cyberdeck to protect any active wireless that he has open (smartlinks, etc.). Why would they make an end-of-level-boss badass and then neglect an obvious vulnerability? The decker will have to work to get to things like his communications or smartlink, and tough luck trying to hack the cyberlimbs (a street samurai with wired reflexes but no reaction enhancers would also have one area "invulnerable" to hacking).

Player characters attempting near-full-body replacement at character creation already pay for the choice, both in opportunity cost (not enough Essence for decent initiative enhancement, or enough resources to trick out those cyberlimbs) and in the problems that come with any kind of semi-obvious 'ware.

Even if you agree wholeheartedly with the wireless bonuses, PCs attempting to minimize their wireless vulnerability are only acting like professional expediters should act. They probably take cover from fire and try to avoid LOS from enemy mages, too.

Silly Talk... Everyone knows that you engage in firefights at 30 paces with an unobstructed view of each other.

I have to agree.
You shouldn't punish players for playing smart and in character.

If I put 10 million nuyen in to a cyberzombie, I'm going to have military grade matrix security on the internal workings and I'm going to take EXTREME measures to make hacking as hard as possible. If I'm a cyberzombie I don't want NO one driving me.

Things like Updates can only be done with by physical connection using proprietary hardware.
And no physical connections between the internal control hardware and software and the networked comm and tac hardware and software.

My point is if you know you are going up against the best in a high security area and they will be targeting you first, then you are an idiot if you leave the backdoor unlocked, unbolted, unbobby trapped, and unwelded shut.

Certainly there is no reason for there to be any way to remote in to the zombie other than a call home security feature and a kill switch which would be waiting for a signal or lack there of.

Now can you stay on a war footing 24 by 7? No, not without serious consequences.
Are you going to be slower than some one directly connected to tac link yes.
Would you have to work hard to not standout from the rest of humanity. No.
Hell you might need to be running a program that makes it look you have the normal number of RIFD and are watching the game wirelessly while texting your fake sin's grandmother (she is old fashion)

Is there a way around it (Sub induction darts with built in comlinks, using a beetle drone to run a fiber optic link while you were on standby, Trojan viruses in the smartgun batteries.)
Oh yes. Where there is a will there is a way, but it will take planning and extra time.

Flip side this is the Cyberzombie and the Street Samuria's thing.
One of the many sacrifices they make to play with the pros.

You just need to make sure that the Cyberzombie is put in situations where pure combat is NOT the solution often enough to give the other more rounded PC the chance to shine.

A shadowrun has plenty of opportunities to split the team up and force people to work outside their comfort zones because the Face has to handle a "situation" (at least for the non combat part of a run).

If you need a little back, the image of a cyberzombie changing diapers or trying to warm a bottle because screaming toddlers would bring the neighbors calling brings a smile to my lips.

Surely real cyberzombies have a lot of drawbacks, especially the astral signature and enormous costs. But what about heavily augmented street samurais? Should they be immune to certain forms of attacks just by making a few decisions during character creation? I'd rather see a character turn off his wireless at strategically important moments than simply not caring about it at all with minimal drawbacks.

I'm new to GMing, not new to the game though. During our last runs (using SR4) all the matrix stuff was handled by NPCs. It looks like it's about to change with SR5, since now people can understand the matrix rules without risking their sanity.

Looks like the word "punishment" is being frowned upon. Please keep in mind that the form of the punishment was not specified. I usually tell the players what can happen if they choose to venture into the powergamer land. I tell them what drawbacks will come with those fancy immunities.

To me, the Shadowrun universe is a very hostile environment that actively tries to kill you in all possible ways. This is why I think about possible ways to make the lives of the characters miserable. Usually, when realistic and well presented, players perceive it as a challenge and have fun.

This.

There is a difference between challenging characters, and going out of your way to target them simply because you disaprove of legitimate, logical, in-game choices to limit obvious vulnerabilities. Besides, SR5 already penalizes heavily augmented characters for leaving wireless off! They lose a +2 dice bonus from their smartlink, they can't combine their wired reflexes and their reaction enhancers - heavily augmented street samurai actually pay the most, compared to other types of characters.

I'm glad he does talk to players about their characters before the start of play, though. That is the time where GMs should address where their campaign differs from the basic rules, and get everyone on the same page.

That seems consistent with people making their plans then going silent for the actual job. Although why a guy whose job is breaking things and killing people should care about the Matrix except for publishing pictures of him with the severed heads of his enemies is a bit opaque to me.



When you speak of punishment, it suggests that you are making choices, not in the interests of unbiased game mastering, but in the interests of enforcing some view of proper play. To put it crudely, you're not creating a level playing field and letting the dice fall where they may but instead penalising players because you simply don't agree with their choices regardless of how well justified those choices might be.



See, that's the problem. Characters miserable? Fine, but why? Because they were stupid and made bad decisions? That's obvious, and should flow naturally from a dispassionate assessment of the situation. Because they were intelligent and made a reasonable cost and benefit analysis of the options at their disposal? That most people would call not merely unreasonable, but petty.

You misunderstand a dystopian world. His end result is a dystopian world where the characters are continually challenged, always the underdogs, in order that the players have a fun and rewarding experience.

@Koekepan: You have a point. If my players want to play gods who are never challenged or never challenged outside of their field of expertise - I'll let them.

Currently I'm planning a solo adventure for a friend who will play an assassin, starting as an inexperienced character. The most exciting part is to make sure that he has multiple ways to handle all kinds of threats: digital, astral and mundane. Sadly, I fear that he'll have to hire NPCs (sometimes).

There is nothing wrong with a tough, gritty future, but it should still consist of the GM being fair and letting the dice fall where they may, even if the world is unfair. For example - the Sensitive System flaw. If the GM singles out the character with that flaw to get abducted and forcibly implanted with cyber, he's being a dick. If everyone is in danger of being abducted and forcibly implanted with cyber, and the character with that flaw is just as likely (or unlikely) to be victimized as everyone else, then the GM is being fair, even if the character with that flaw does have that happen to him, and suffers more because of his flaw.

Maybe he runs it that way, and is just guilty of choosing the wrong words to make himself understood. But when someone talks about "punishing" players, or making them pay for their "fancy immunities", it sounds less like an evenhanded GM running a uniformly dystopian world, and more like a GM singling players out for vindictive treatment because they made an intelligent choice. Shadowrunners are professional criminals. They should be very careful about when, and if, they go wireless. Honestly, it's the people who do go wireless that you need to occasionally target with a matrix attack, or they will be getting those bonuses for nothing. People who turn the wireless off suffer degraded performance and impaired communications - they don't need random shit happening to them for no reason, on top of the quantifiable and meaningful penalties they already suffer.

I'm not sure what about my point led you to believe I suggested otherwise...?

This rather misses the point.

Let's say I'm making a character, a standard 400 point character as per SR4A. This is an experienced, seasoned person with a reasonable notion of likely threats, challenges and weaknesses in the game world. Wouldn't such a person make intelligent choices concerning this dangerous way of life? Wouldn't risk mitigation be a reasonable, plausible part of that?

After all, if you can't mitigate risks, you're likely to turn into ghoul munchies sooner rather than later.

You were defending qis' GMing style, and apparently took exception to Koekepan stating that characters should not be punished for making intelligent, rational decisions.

I have no problem with "Oh, you turned off your wireless? Remember that your smartlinks don't give you +2 to hit any more, and you can't communicate with your ninja guy inside the compound - no OOC knowledge if something happens to him - and you will need a simple action, not a free action, if you need to activate your suit's oxygen supply." Even if the ninja guy gets caught and they don't know right away, even if they take some damage from defensive tear gas because they couldn't get their internal air supply turned on instantly, even if they miss a shot they might have made with two more dice. Conversely, if they do have their wireless enabled, there is always a chance that the street samurai might get his wired reflexes bricked, or the rigger might have his targeting display suddenly filled with troll-on-elf BDSM porn, or their handgun might eject its clip.

I do have a problem with the GM going "Oh, you're turning your wireless off, huh, you powergaming munchkins? Well, I'll make sure you pay for your fancy immunities!" It's one thing to run a tough and gritty, challenging, but impersonal game, and it's another thing to deliberately target the characters for no reason other than because professional criminals took some sensible precautions.

I'm with Glyph on this one: qis seems to be going after his players simply for doing the most reasonable thing that the characters have all the reasons to be doing anyway, if they're professionals and have survived long enough to become them.

I don't know. What happens if you're mage starts to mind control guards to kill themselves? Are there consequences for the mage? Is the mage just playing smart?

Dunno, if I'm a mage I think playing pnp will not be as attractive.

Otherwise, a mage killing guards with mind control should face the same consequences as one killing them with stunballs (which is much more drain-effective) or in any other way.

I am not 100% sure how SR5 works, but I assume the mage has to expend an action to cast the spell, then spend another action giving an order (if the latter is a free action, then maybe both in one initiative pass), then the guard uses his next available action to carry out the order. Assuming success despite any visibility penalties, wards, or counterspelling, then the guard will presumably kill himself (or try to). Not much different than lightning bolting him, other than taking a bit longer.

Consequences? Other than making an attempt at spellcasting that may or may not work, and soaking Drain, only the usual consequences, whatever they may be, for killing corporate personnel. In some campaigns, runners might be expected to have a low body count, or mental manipulation spells might be seen as repugnant. In either case, the runners might have to deal with a hit to their reputation, or be likelier to be targeted by the corporation for revenge. Hopefully, this would have been made clear to the players beforehand.

If the tactic is too easy/successful, the GM should, ideally, either adapt to the tactic (and have the corporations do likewise - it's not like magic hasn't been around long enough for people to have countermeasures against it), or have an OOC discussion where the tactic is banned for PC (and GM!) use in the future. I don't have a problem with games where guards tend to be behind wards, where spirits patrol the grounds and attack when they spot unauthorized magic use, or where the guards are spread out and placed where they are hard to see. I also don't have a problem with the GM banning something because he does not know how to challenge/deal with it (although I would appreciate a chance to change my character's stats accordingly - being allowed to replace control thoughts with another spell, for example).

I do have a problem with a GM who, rather than having logical reactions and consequences, simply sets out to punish the character by having completely unrelated bad things happening to him (snipers, etc. - note that this would be acceptable if the game were one of the aforementioned ones where mind control spells are considered repugnant, and might elicit such a reaction).

@Glyph: Putting up a sniper to protect corp security is no different than giving them a mage. Forcing a player to replace his favorite spell is also punishment - I'd hate it. Still I think that you misunderstand me to some degree. English is my third language and it's difficult to be precise. Sorry.

After a few days of thought I came to the following conclusions:

• Wireless bonuses are much heavier, than I expected. Turning wireless off is well handled by the rules.
• If you're smart, there is always another person out there who is smarter. I, for once, love being outsmarted - you learn from it!
• There can be situations when hacking a player who does not want to be hacked is necessary. Story-wise or for fun (player-fun, not GM-fun).

These are the scenarios that I could think of. Please correct me if I'm wrong (that wouldn't be a surprise):

• The character has set his cyberware PAN range to 1m and uses his commlink/deck as a proxy. Are there even rules for that? I'd allow it because it's a cool solution, but that would make the commlink/deck also a host. An enemy decker would hack this host and then hack the cyberware behind it.
• The character has disabled wireless in his cyberware but uses his commlink/deck for communication. Perfectly fine and covered by the rules. An attacker would hack the icon and throw in a Psychotropic IC that makes the character want to enable his wireless. (Not sure if possible and the rules behind it - will investigate.)
• The character has gone completely wireless. Informing the player about all negative consequences provided by the rules should be enough. If it's really important to hack the player story-wise, then I'd try to capture him with non-lethal force making it possible but difficult to win the battle.

During encounters with hostile NPCs you often have grunts, officers and sometimes legends among them. You know what you're up against when you see a corporate troll with visible cyberware, full body armor and a light machine gun in his hand. You also know what you're up against, when you know this high security facility has a decker and your well protected hardware bricks. Do your legwork and you'll known in advance what to expect.

PS: Thanks to this discussion I learned to be more sensitive about how players perceive challanges and arbitrary GM decisions. It helps to discuss those issues in advance.

In which case your OPFOR using its SOTA gear breaks your encryption (if there is any) and broad casts it and records the information, or just jams your radio frequency (so about all you can do at this point is try and yell above the gunfire). Meanwhile OPFOR's tacnet software has calculated your probable positions and a drone with a grenade launcher loitering on the battlefield is about to ruin your day.

If the runners continually use the same tactics, it will be like leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. They will then be vulnerable to be tracked down and killed/taken prisoner/reprogrammed.

Also, mages in 4th ed are OP compared with the other archetypes/roles, in 5th the drain codes are much more balanced.

Yes, it is call slaving, and you correctly identify the cost/benefit of it.



Yes, it is possible. But at that point, why not make him so completely remorseful that he turns himself in to the nearest security guard.....remeber, Horizon is your friend and they want to help you with your anti-social tendencies.



This..sometimes I get frustrated when players don't do proper legwork. It gets messy, and leads to a botched run. I usually have the objective, what the security setup is, how alert security is, and what vulnerabilities there are securitywise all mapped out. Then I leave it up to the players to figure thing out.

It is true that the GM's job is to "punish" the PC with consequences to their actions in such a way that everyone has fun.

Part of the problem is the GM is not only the players' eyes and ear but also the keeper of their pregame memories, world experiences, and final arbitrator of what is making the "smart" play based on the available information.


Players should be rewarded for playing smart but need to understand that the fun usually doesn't get going until some thing goes wrong.
Also making a mistake "in character" as a PC is what put's the role in roleplaying.

A good background with "advantages" and "disadvantages" that map out between the GM and player what misadventures the player wants the PC to have really helps.


It sounds like you are talking to your players which is half the battle of running a good game.


Certainly you can make the case that someone who is totally off the grid will actually stand out more in some situations which helps to balance it out.

If any thing there are plenty who believe that SR5 want too far with wireless bonuses.

It is not so much the bonuses which where changed for good reason as the fact that they erased a lot of common counter measures and stretched suspension of disbelieve by forcing certain bonuses which don't make sense. If nothing else with enough time and nuyen you should be able to come up with a hard wired alternative to the wireless bonuses.

And I'm only suggesting that the best would have tactics to limit the damage of combat "hacking".

this thread has taught me i still need to wait on buying 4 copies of SR5...

The issue here is how logical those consequences that are to be enforced are supposed to be. I love Mass Effect as an example in what comes to consequences - like, you know how your guys will die in the last mission to a stray bullet unless you did their loyalty mission? That's consequence alright, but it follows from the world's logic in no way.
Having cyberzombie mage snipers ambush your team for daring to do the smart thing and turn the wireless off makes about as much sense.

I think a GM needs to challenge players on multiple vectors, and not worry if they are good at resisting one avenue of attack. Let them get what they paid for or planned for. Let the troll unflinchingly soak small arms fire, or the old-fashioned gunslinger laugh at hackers trying to crack his non-existent wireless link, or the mage stop incoming hostile spells like a magical defensive lineman. There are still plenty of other ways to challenge them! The limited resources available at character creation ensure that even the most well-crafted characters will have some vulnerabilities, by necessary omissions if nothing else.

I heavily hate SR5. We just had our first session yesterday and i really don´t see any improvement in comparison to SR4. I DO admit, that i only know about combat and magic rules and care a sh**t about hacking/decking, but at least in my 2 fields of work, there is nothing better than before.

Limits: Limits sounded right at the beginning, but after what happened yesterday limits can lick my ba**ls. SR is a game played with dice. The lower your pool is, the lower the chance to succeed in a test. If i play a goon with 3 dice and i have the luck to get 3 successes, these 3 successes SHOULD COUNT. You have earned it, Lady Luck said it so...whatever. But that successes don´t count because of some stupid limit....? What did they think about it? If i play a combat oriented char. my physical attributes are high anyway. So i have limits so high, that i have problems to roll an equivalent number of hits.

Higher Skills: Karma rewards dropped in average by 30% compared to SR4 (IF you don´t fight against high-end runners with dice pools of 20 commonly), but you have skill ratings double as high than before. What does this mean? Either you can´t raise your skills over 6 (maybe just one main skill) and your other dice pools will basically stay the same like at character creation. So why the hell can the skills be raised anyway if barely nothing changes? For the OPTION? Bull***t and you know it. If i can´t reach the maximum skill ratings, i don´t see the meaning of implementing some.

Magic: I don´t think that i have to point out the great developments the Devs did. Direct compat spells are useless, indirect ones are not worth the drain and every GM will hate what will - no, what HAS to happen next: Mind-Control-mages everywhere. Highly specialized on maniulation spells - up to the point they can´t do anything else (because as if the mages weren´t f**ed up enough, now the defensive dice pool of an enemy can be nearly as high as yours (two attributes)) and if your opposition has a mage with spell defense, you can basically go home or order some pizza. To be at least a bit competent you still have to focus on mental attributes, so that you are STILL a glass cannon, but now - newly and improved - without a cannon....have fun!!!

Spirits: If i haven´t overread something important, spirits a still a high risk to summon because of the drain. Low-level-spirits are still useless in combat and high level spirits can now be blown away with a common gun, because the damage codes of the weapons were improved SO MUCH, that even a heavy pistol will automatically bypass the ITNW. Auto-successes really don´t better the situation and a force 6 spirit, hurt by a Ares Predator (without armor piercing ammo) is just wrong.

Rituals: I have to PAY to know a ritual? Karma? From what karma? The one that has been reduced already? The one i have to invest in double-high skills? Now i even don´t know how to summon a Watcher anymore? Or a ward? Things that have been basic knowledge in prevoius editions? Sorry but i don´t get it. How often do you use Ritual Spellcasting? Or a Watcher? It is NEVER worth the costs. Don´t even think about the TIME the need to finish the ritual. Circle of Defense that will be completet after [force] hours? What use should this ritual have? If it would be a Dresden-files-circle-in-a-second....ok. But hours? Useless bull***t, but HEY....THANK YOU FOR OPTIONS...Options that will NEVER be used because of stupidity. Thank you for even more useless watchers, that will now rather be replaced by force 1 spirits.

Echanting / Reagents: read the rules or believe me that it is useless to need hours to make a preparation that will last minutes, (unless you spend karma that you don´t have) and you save a lot of time. But again, THANK YOU FOR THE OPTIONS...if you play a game where your alchemist-lab is located in a van, so that the mage can prepare the useful stuff on-time and can jump in action right after finishing the preparation..it may be different. I still wonder how you will get that van into the high-security-office on the 120th floor you have to inflitrate, but hey....i am sure for every other playing group this is common business....NOT.

Wireless: What did they smoke as they came to this solution? Did a guy from the Shadowrun-Police stay behind them with a club, forcing them to do SOMETHING, no matter if it makes sense? And in the overall panic they came to this rule? Guys: The meaning of a smartlink is to give additional dice. Now the MAIN-PURPOSE only works as an addition? An addition that makes you vulnerable to attacks? Bull***t. And hardware damaged by hacker attacks? Wonder how this can happen. But logic doesn´t seem to be the strong side of these guys. Maybe they shouldn´t have fired all the competent employees and freelancers and keep the game-balancing to guys who know the game.

Mystic Adepts: So you really wanna tell me, that i can be a mage AND a FULLY CAPABLE Adept at the same time, WITHOUT negative consequences? Please tell me, WHY the hell somebody should play a common adept anymore. IIRC the mystic adepts had been called overpowered in SR4 and THIS is your solution? Aha...ok.

Elemental-Attack: only magic meters? Really?

RESULT: See first line of my post. If prevoius books don´t fix the system massively, SR5 is the worst system that has ever been published. Sometimes it looks to me, that they wanted to purchase the licence for Cyperpunk 2077 but couldn´t get it. So they reduce the magic-part of SR over time until it is the same. To the devs: Guys...SR is a game-world WITH MAGIC. MAGIC IS POWERFUL, OTHERWISE IT WOULDN`T BE MAGIC. DEAL WITH IT FOR GODS SAKE!!!

That sure is a lot of butthurt.

The limits and skill limitations are there to create a sense of meaningful growth in character progression. In the SR4 style, and less so but still quite evident in the SR3 style, a character will have 90% of everything they'll ever have coming out of character creation. Limits have since been imposed to make starting characters obviously weaker than experienced characters.

Beyond that, yes. Magic is no long a push to win button. Your mileage may obviously vary on the quality of the methods used. For magic to be a PC usable skill, it has to be able to be brought within a mile or two of being balanced compared to other character choices, rather than being 'cast stunbolt, win combat, rinse and repeat'.

That said, it sounds like you may want to stick with SR4, given how angry a different game balance set seems to make you.

This happened twice to me/my Chars in SR3 and never ,ever in 4A. most of my Chars need some 100 Karma to develope and maybe 800-1000 or more Karma to be at the End of Developement and I consider myself a Min/Maxer.
Saying that all starting Chars are at 90% final Potential is quite ...subjective
But Machiavelli has a good Argument (besides his ranting)
If You need more Karma to develope Your Char and You receive less Karma per Adventure it takes even longer for Chars to develope/prosper and thus the Game can be more frustrating than former Editions

with a developed Dance
Medicineman

And he did not even mention that you are supposed to get even less karma, if you follow the way of money and not be a goody two shoes instead.

What are these rules contradictions you keep talking about? Besides troll lifestyle costs and all those mistakes from previews

There.

Limits are simply there to stop people heading straight for dice pool caps which slow down the game. Now you have to work on not only your skill pool but your limit as well. Your character still improves but without needing a bucket and a boxing ring to roll your tests (at least initially). Even your example is confusing because in most cases the limit the goon will have with any weapon will be greater than 3.



Does Shadowrun 5 have hard and fast Karma rules now? I haven't read this anywhere (although that certainly doesn't mean it isn't there) but in every edition thus far karma has been totally subjective. You want your game to progress faster then award more karma, if not then award less. I don't see an issue here besides you just looking for things to hate.



Direct combat spells are not useless. They are just niche now instead of a complete no-brainer like they were before. Having indirect spells being more generally effective has made Shadowrun magic more thematic, which is a good thing.

Mind control mages were MORE overpowered in 4th ed than they are now. I think you'll find that most people who have jumped on that concept have not actually read the rules on how mental manipulation spells work now. For instance getting 2 mental stats to resist is a massive improvement and being able to shake the effect is also new.



I think people have lost perspective on how good spirits are. It gives you a sentient follower who can potentially use magic, move through walls, fly and have excellent durability which you can summon with one action. They are better than any single spell by a country mile........... and you hate how they're no longer virtually immortal to non-casters? Jeez.................




I'd suggest that if you were up with your mechanics that force one spirits are actually quite hard to summon and that is probably why they have made watchers a ritual, but that aside I actually kind of agree that perhaps this is not a virtue of the system, although circle of healing is a nice ritual.



Enchanting was more useless in prior editions. It certainly needs some clarification but your description is full of hyperbole. It doesn't take hours to prepare but actually minutes. It doesn't last minutes it actually lasts hours before it even starts to lose potency. When you use the preparation it does actually only last minutes then but how long does it have to last? A combat turn lasts 3 seconds. The benefit of removing drain from combat (and possibly even sustaining penalties, although this pushes the whole thing into over-powered status and needs to be clarified) is simply awesome and easy to manage.

True you can't make 50 of them now and start using them next week but that doesn't make alchemy useless, it just makes it a strategic resource.

Personally, I don't like it, but it's easily ignored just like I assume you have been in 4th edition anyway?



Again, this is a viewpoint generated by people who read the rules and saw the implications to their favorite OP street-sam. The intent of the system is that deckers are rare and should not pose much of a threat to Runners out in the real world. Corporate deckers are too busy guarding nodes to be patrolling corporate grounds waiting to brick Shadowrunner cyberware, especially as a deck that isn't completely worthless costs about $150k. On the flip-side the new marix protocols took 99% of hackers out of the game, so NPCs should feel quite comfortable leaving their wireless on for the benefits. Not only that but if you slave all your gear to a good comlink (or your deckers deck) it's very hard for a decker to touch your stuff and you will know when they are doing it. They basically have to be within 100m to do it to you and have to have spotted your devices in the matrix previously (not just randomly find them online). There are some issues when perhaps a decker becomes familiar with your gear and escapes combat they can THEN find your stuff online but they will have to worry about noice and the GOD (if they are not corp sanctioned) and other hacking duties that don't go away.

The rest of the arguments about wireless are driven by realism, which I don't care about because I play a fricking vampire in the future. Realism need not apply. If you just let the wireless system be what it is it works fine. You may even find that someone might actually want to play a decker which hasn't happened since about 2nd Ed I think in most people's experience.




I agree this needs some work. I think Mystic adepts needed to be improved from 4th Ed but they are definitely too good now. Some minor tweaks will do that. Still not a terminal issue for the edition though.



Maybe a little short. LOS with no range penalty was too good though.



That's clearly not the case. Shadowrun has much better penetration than Cyberpunk which I think no-one has played since about 1990. So for this edition is the best one they've ever made. Deckers are back, cool and playable. A mage can choose other spells besides stun/power/bolt/ball now which is awesome! This is by far the best edition to date.

NOTE: People considering the switch, the pdf is $20, hardly a big deal. Just get it and give it a read. Don't take negative opinions on forums too much into account. No matter what the topic, negative opinions are always over-represented on internet forums because most people happy with a product are too busy being happy with it to come here and tell you about it

I was hoping for some summary. ) Can't force myself to read that thread...

I have a 2E Character with over 500 karma (roughly 3 years of play), another guy in that group is nearing 1k. These characters were not possible in 4e as there was no room for growth. You have 1k karma in 4e and your playing the Mage/Hacker/Street Sam with nothing to spend karma on.

Mind control spells are the only thing I know of in SR4 that doesnt have at least 2 pools to pull from. Its not like they sell mind armor. So broken, 4e was Magic-run more so than 3e which seemed again to be way easy on the Spellcasters compared with 2e (where each drain code was a separate spell you paid exponential karma on). Now magic getting easier makes sense with the whole earthdawn tie ins but Mind control was still stupid easy in 4e.

SR3 was probably the high point for awakened characters, power-wise. SR4 made them slightly less powerful, although there were a few problem areas such as spirits being too hard for mundanes to damage at all, overcasting being too easy to do, and mental manipulation spells being potentially game-wrecking. Possession traditions were also a can of worms - mainly from it being abused against opponents (there should have been a rule for it to work on prepared vessels only, rather than making everyone vulnerable to an attack from astral space).

SR5, unfortunately, hit mages too hard with the nerf bat, to the point where they are barely effective. Or maybe it only looks that way. I would love for DrZaius to have a mage vs. mundane battle on his next Saturday Night Pit Fight, so we can see how good (or, more likely, bad) mages are in combat. But spells have higher Drain, do lower base damage (for direct combat spells), and the target gets two Attributes to resist them even though hits are still capped. So they don't look that viable to me, outside of a support role.

You really have to read the thread to get the full scope of just how badly edited the 5e release is. The thing's riddled with issues that a more careful proofing would have eliminated.

My favorite one so far is used cyberware at character creation. The character creation chapter says you can get standard, alphaware, or used cyberware at creation. The gear section uses the exact same sentence structure, but specifically says you can only get standard or alphaware at creation.

@Tete

I Myself have dozens of chars that prove you wrong. I calculated that they neeed 1500-2000 Karma (some even more) to be fully developed.
(and I'm afraid I will never see that coming because I don't play often enough)

Hmmm If You get an average of 5 Karma per run, it would take You about 200 Runs to get at 1000 Karma.
If you play once a week( Each Sunday f.e.) and you finish a Run with one or sometimes two Sessions ( my Groups need mostly 1 or 2 Sessions per Run )
Than you need an average of 6 Years of continous playing with only one Char each week (or even longer)
So If You start playing now each and every Week once You're at 1000 Karma CGL wil bring out SR 6th Ed.
What I'm saying is that talking about extreme high end Chars is ....kinda moot.
It reminds me of People complaining that MAG is theoretically unlimited with Initiations but they keep forgetting that it takes 200 Karma to raise MAG from 5 -->9 only

with a theoretically unlimited Dance
Medicineman

You can tack any amount of karma bloat onto any character, Medicineman. But how much of that was actually honestly going to expand your character's ability in their primary role, and not just adding ability to cover secondary roles and more options in tough situations?

A well-rounded character has many more ways to meaningfully grow, and putting limits on how deeply specialized a character can be coming out of creation is one way to encourage making more rounded characters.

Yeah, thing is, sammies encounter the same problems (try saving up the money for wired reflexes 3, especially non-standardware), but don't have that unlimited potential. It's the asymmetry that is the issue.

But even as a Streetsam in SR4 you can put hundreds of karma into combat/physical skills and combat advantages. Increasing the limit to 12 is too much, 8or 9 would have been better - and the so much talked OP of mages is mostly a result of overcasting of spells and spirits (even the infamous stunbolt is only so effective because he can be cast on force 9 to 11 with low drain) and a lot of GMs missing basic rules (like BGC or +4 spelldefense when in cover). Remove overcasting (or reduce it to magic +2), increase the drain of combat spells a little bit, decrease the drain of elemental spells et voila, a lot of problems are gone.

SYL

I wasn't active on forums for the 3rd to 4th changes, but are all edition changes so divisive? I read Machiavelli's long rant about SR5, and most of the points made are changes I liked. Adding limits forced me to reevaluate the way I've built certain archetypes time and again. That's a good thing.

Awakened still rule the world a bit too much sadly, but SR5 has it close to where it needs to be. They just always have more options for development. If ever a piece of cyber is more valuable than a point of magic, they can make that choice, mundanes never get the option in reverse (in the case of latent awakening they are not actually mundane). And with unlimited caps on initiation/magic, there is really no upper limit to either side for them. Though that does rarely come into play.

Honestly, the all caps ranting about magic makes me think, and I admit I could be wrong, that his personal cheese finally got called out, so now he has to adapt and refuses to. The campaign I currently run has 4 awakened and 1 decker with his deck in a cyberarm. So. . .I really don't see this OMG magic is unplayable. If it was maybe I could get more of my players to play cyberpunk not magicrun. And no, none of them are ever useless. From the mage levitating cars to cause wrecks during a car chase, to the adept Sammy who destroys things in combat, everyone does their role well. Which I think is the most important part of an cooperative RPG, everyone has a part to contribute. It is far more difficult for an awakened character to be able to come out of chargen doing everything. I find this to be a good thing. I want the players who play different aspects of the game to not get outshown in that aspect by single spells representing only a 5 karma aside from the mage.

On Mystic Adepts-I have found that in actual play, with the Missions errata to 5 karma per powerpoint at chargen, and the changes to power point acquisition, they are fairly balanced. On paper they look too good, but from what I have seen in play is they get spread too thin.

Spirits- I am comfortable with most of the changes, some bad some good. No longer can I have my half dozen+ watcher spirits floating around, ah well. Spirits do still have some problems, I like them being hurt by mundanes. It helps stop the magicrun problem. If only awakened can deal with spirits, what do mundanes do to spirits on a run? Why have a mundane at all if magic can always contribute, but in some circumstances the mundane never can? My personal preference would be for each spirit type to have a weakness so mundanes could combat them similar to Supernatural, but I will settle for mundanes simply not being useless. This makes having ranks in magical knowledge useful for even a cybersam just to know what loadout to use, and how to identify the types.

Matrix-If they only brought back implanted hard drives and megapulses, I would be set . Best matrix rules in awhile. A very good meshing of workable rules (generally) with SR fluff, without getting too distracted by how computers really work.

Wireless-I dislike the bonuses. Not the concept, the implementation. Too many of them are pointless functionality, or actually a detriment. Stealth suit needing wireless? Why stealth when you are broadcasting your location?

As for hacking them, it is dataspike which is the biggest problem. Though it does take a very good deck to do it, one shotting gear with a dataspike with no marks on it gets pretty easy.

As for editing and typos and layout. Those are all pretty bad. But some excellent artwork and the 3 page fold outs of the cityscapes are phenomenal.

I think it comes pretty clearly that I like the new edition. But I love learning new systems and then playing with them, as long as the system is good and functional. And SR5 is good and functional, though it is a few steps from perfect.

A "competent character filling one role" is subjective. In SR4 maxing a single skill at chargen is easy, while in SR5 starting as a competent team member is impossible even for that easy definition.

Specialists will need the additional dice from skills. IE: Samurai need to cope with 15-20ish defense pools pretty often. Let´s call it 100 karma/skill.
Attributes are even more valuable using SR5 due to limits.

If you are coming from some old-school system you´ll feel at home in SR5. For our style of play I´d need to have karmagen available (to amp up the starting ressources), hand out about two times the karma, and limit ingame attribute increases. For comparison: The current SR4 chars have 300 karma, need at least 200 more, and with some breaks from playing (SR4) the journey has taken two years.


Medicineman´s figures are insane, I remember (Just jealous...)

Yeah, unless we're talking evolutionary change (like SR1->3, or D&D 3->3.5), edition changes are always divisive. That depends on the quality of the new edition and the depth of the change, of course, so for instance D&D2->3 wasn't nearly as dramatic as 3->4.

We've got a very different definition of 'competent team member' if yours requires the expectation of a maxed-out skill (noted in the fluff as 'best in the world class') coming out of chargen.

Basic characters with zero advancement should not be the best in the world at what they do. They aren't Prime Runners. They are very, very small fish in a very big ocean, who might maybe survive to be big fish given a few years and a whole shit-ton of luck.

A competent character is capable of succeeding at typical tasks required of him. And yeah, that requires high skill ratings (what a surprise!)

Not much I can say to that other than that I don't think you've grasped the basics of game design here very well.

I´m Ryu, and I´m a skill junkie. I prefer karmagen for the number of possible skills (among other reasons), and despite spending heavily on low-rated skills and skillgroups usually can´t afford what I would like. I still have to admit that some areas can functionally be covered using only 2-3 skills. Especially in one-shot convention games.

I can spend tons of karma within my spec using SR4, and it will take years in RL for said char to be really good. And I´m not really allowed to increase magic beyond 5.

Using RAW numbers said progress takes many times longer using SR5, so I´d look at fixing that. As for relative positions (again, RAW), the SR4 character can be very competent in parts of their given field, while the SR5 character straight out can´t reach the necessary dicepools. Again, some people might prefer the new way of doing things.



@Fatum: IMO you don´t need the last few dice using SR4, so you can skimp on 2-3 dice from skill if you got yourself nice attributes and solid gear. On the other hand I would not like to loose dice using SR5. Combats last much longer when offensive and defensive pools are on the same level (say 14), compared to a 16:8 gap.