So I have finally decided to dig in to the 5th edition and while I like how many things were basically cleaned up I am having a problem understanding the underpinnings of limits, or rather the why, and how some of it works. Just to be clear I am not saying they suck, I am not trying to start some sort of edition vs. edition argument, I just want to get it, or at least feel like I am on solid ground if I decide to toss it out the window.

1. Do limits apply to the base hits or net hits?
2. Do you get to roll all your dice, total up the successes and compare them to your opponents successes to get net hits and then reduce them if you are over your limit, or do they reduce your hits before you compare results?
3. What was the reason for implementing limits?
4. Don't limits emphasize attributes over skills?
5. How is it even possible for the runners to take out a high force spirit or dragon now? (not a common event certainly, but I always liked to know both as a player and a GM that anyone can meet the reaper, the way it stands now it seems like only really bad luck for the victim and really good luck for the attacker will do it). Just burn Edge you don't have?
6. Accuracy is irking me, why would you use a tool if it in many cases restricts you to a limit lower than your limit without it? I mean the point of a tool is to make things possible or easier, so why use these tools.
7. Is SR5 more of a Magicrun since Magic is the only thing without a limit?
8. Any house rules for the above?
9. Am I better off taking stuff I like in SR5 and transplanting it to SR4?

Any answers or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Basically as I see it right now SR5 gives with one hand while taking away with the other, so it worth investing in the new game or not both from a time and money viewpoint?

Base hits.

Base hits.

Regardless of whether I agree or not, the reasons, as given, had to do with trying to make characters less min/maxed and more well-rounded, making the character (and their attributes) matter more than just the gear they're using, and applying another axis (besides just adding or removing dice) to modifiers. Things that influence Limit/accuracy/whatever can call back to the olden days of having TN modifiers and die pool modifiers; it gives a second tier of modifiers possible.


The idea was to balance the two (especially since skills were going up so much higher than in SR4.

Note that spending Edge (to overcome Limits, among other benefits) isn't the same as to burn Edge. And if it's Edge "you don't have," and you're aware of how handy it is, the general idea is to suggest that people do have it; choosing to lowball Edge to increase other attributes is a choice, and a meaningful one.


I'm still not crazy about it myself (among other SR5 things), but keep in mind that there are ways to modify Accuracy, and that things with lower Accuracy generally have something else going for them (AP, damage, reach, special effects) that your bare hands don't. And also keep in mind that not everyone has a really great Limit; to a schmuck in a bar fight, a weapon with a low Accuracy isn't as limiting as it might be to a hardcore Street Sammie.

FWIW, one early idea was for Accuracy to be a Limit modifier (so that Michaelangelo the Ninja Turtle was more accurate than Michaelangelo the artist, with nunchaku)...you'd take your personal Limit, Accuracy stat modified that (or maybe even didn't, leaving it at the base attribute for some weapons), etc. There was concern from playtesters that it made things too complicated, and that it was easier for each weapon to just have an Accuracy, period, instead of folks having to do math or whatever. I'm still more fond of the old method than the new, but that's just me.


Magic still has a Limit, it's just the same Limit it had in SR4: Force. Magic didn't get a new Limit, but it's had one all along.


Lots (including from some of us). I can't share details, and I probably shouldn't even if I could, but one of my ideas was to calculate Limits just like they are now, but turn them into positives instead of negatives (harkening back to the days of Combat Pool, etc).


No comment. That's up to you and yours.

Thanks for the nice breakdown. I particularly liked the Accuracy as bonus concept which of course may create a mess for Unarmed Combat monsters but of course makes sense since there is a very real reason weapons were developed in the first place...they make killing things a hell of lot easier than doing it with your bare hands. Also the limits as expendable dice pool is pretty damn neat too. They were probably the only thing outside of initiative that I missed from earlier editions. The only concern I have with that is the same I have with any dice pool game, pool inflation. What do you think is a good dice limit before switching to purchased successes for speeding up play? I never saw it recommended as an option in any of the 4E books and wondered if you had any experience using something like that as a house rule or heard of anyone using it as such. Also in the case of implementing the limit as "Combat Pool" I would assume the Accuracy as Bonus would be applied as a direct bonus to every roll of the weapon instead of to a changing pool. Anyway thanks again. Like I said I like a lot about 5E, but the limits and accuracy really were kind of breaking things for me since they seem to impose an artificial ceiling on players, or it could have just been a Great Dragon conspiracy to ensure their survival I think I have a way forward now.

Our group has been playing SR5 for a while now. In my experience the limits as set are not that limiting overall. On occasion some characters bump against their limits. Our combat monster actually hits her limits on a somewhat regular basis. I don’t see a problem with it.

Gear having its own inherent limit makes sense to me. If I have two characters with equal skill and one is using a precision rifle and the other is using a zip-gun (all other factors being equal) I’d expect the precision rifle to hit the target more often than the zip-gun. That is what accuracy is all about.

I really liked Critias’s explanation of the whole thing. It is well worded and does a good job of not pushing edition bias. I’ve been playing ShadowRun since the original and so far I honestly like SR5 over SR4 (though SR2/3 is probably still my favorite). I’m really looking forward to the splat books so that we can stop house-ruling so much gear from SR4 (we converted our characters).

Our team decker hasn’t had any issues with limits, our B&E expert has clipped her limits on occasion (though usually only by a hit or two), our combat medic has only bumped into her limit on Perception (she’s a perception monster), and our combat monster runs up against her weapon limits most of the time. I think that that is a good excuse to branch out and improve skills other than “kill it with fire!”

Of course this is all just my opinion, and we all know about those.

While I realize that to be the case, I tend to look at the extremes. If the extremes don't make any sense, i.e. it becomes nearly impossible to hit a house sized creature unless the characters are burning edge, it rubs me the wrong way, and more importantly it would rub my players the wrong way. It does not seem fair, and really does nothing to promote its original purpose, in fact it kind of adds a M.A.D. scenario from D&D 3.5 to the system.



From personal experience the quality of the firearms affects its reliability far more than its accuracy. Accuracy is more a function of skill than equipment, until we get to extreme ranges. 500yds with a M16a2, sure a floating barrel, high powered scope, and a lighter trigger would make it quicker and possibly a little more accurate, but since I am dropping 9 of 10 or 10 of 10 on center mass anyway I don't think it would really matter until I am looking at 1000 yd shots or greater. Seeing as how SR does not really support those kinds of engagements or at least they don't occur often in my game experience the entire premise of it seems faulty. A zip gun is still better than no firearm, any firearm is better than no firearm, and accuracy can be lower than your physical limit so it really makes no sense when it adds a high degree of complexity to the process of choosing weapons in combat. You really should not have to consider on a very frequent basis whether to attack someone unarmed or with a gun. 9 out of 10 times the answer should be glaringly obvious, unfortunately now it is not.



I have been a player or GM since 1st and enjoyed 2nd and 3rd. 4th seemed to streamline many of the problems I had with the older editions. 5th brought back an older style initiative, and seems to clear up many of the problems I had with 4th, however it also created new issues. Primarily the limits, and accuracy. On one level I like them, but on another I really dislike them. In other words their implementation seems faulty to my style of play, and my way of thinking. I don't like anything to be enshrined as impossible to kill. If you have to burn edge to do something not normally possible, it is essentially saying impossible. Hard to kill fine, impossible no, no, and no.



While I agree with that to an extent, a system that says don't reach for greatness, it is pointless really does nothing to entice me. I think I have figured out a way forward for me at least with very minimal tinkering. I will implement the following house rules. 1) Net hits instead of base hits are affected by limits. This limits just how much success you can have without limiting your ability to succeed. The maximally augmented street sam might be able to cut a car in half but not an oil tanker, a dragon could shred that oil tanker. It limits the degree of success, not the actual act of accomplishing something. 2) Accuracy raises the limit. That way it always makes sense to be armed, and the better you are the better you will want your equipment to be.

Thanks for the input.

Well, you still can't shoot with your hands...

While I understand your sentiment, it really doesn't work like that. A gun will be better than unarmed because: It does lethal damage; It can attack at range; It likely has an AP; It likely does more damage than your hands.

A better comparison would be something like an unarmed master versus using a sword. A character with high physical stats will probably have a limit of around 10. A sword has 6 (I think, maybe 7). To the unarmed master his fists are probably better, but to any average Joe unlikely to get close to 6 hits the sword, with it's physical damage, it's extra 3 damage, and it's AP value will be a far superior choice. It is in fact still the superior choice for most runners, even those with enough dice to exceed the limit. Only someone focusing on unarmed damage (killing hands or bone lacing etc) will be able to match the sword while unarmed.

I realize it was a gross simplification, maybe I was even engaging in a little hyperbole, but it still boils down to buy skills, buy all these cool things, get your mage to cast shit on you, augment the hell out of yourself, and if you get lucky, and get more hits than you should, we have this mechanic to take it away, so there is no difference between you rolling average, and that street punk rolling really well. It seems like a half assed attempt to regulate the game by forcing a lower level of play. Sorry, if I have a campaign go for a long time (and I have a habit of running games that span years) and the players are regularly playing on a big stage I don't want them to have to rely on luck/Edge (me giving them Edge) to let them use the full benefit of their character. They already paid for that with karma and nuyen.

The thing is, as long as you have one net hit on the opposed test, you've technically "hit", and (barring perhaps dragons), most larger creatures aren't going to have (read: *shouldn't* have) very high Agility scores to reflect their larger (and therefore more cumbersome) nature. So you may still be hitting the house sized creature, it's just that it's probably going to have a ton of armor, so you may only do a piddling amount of damage (if any).

Then again, magic tends to get involved, so everything I just said can probably be thrown out the window...

I realize it won't always come into play, in fact probably not at all until you get to advanced characters. Armor makes sense, but limits on base hits give critters story armor, in situations where they should not, as if everything else is not enough to show that some critters should be difficult, are in fact difficult to beat. When is a Dragon a difficult enough target? Answer when it is impossible, because the only way around it is to make the impossible, possible by using Edge. Just won't work for my games. I like the idea as a limit to the absurdity of unlimited damage after the truck load of dice get rolled, but if I am rolling that many I should get something out of it every time, not just some of he time. Limiting net hits allows that and fits with how force limits magic. It just seems more fair.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that hitting a dragon is impossible? Both types have a Reaction and Intuition of 8 - so 16 dice to dodge. Even if I only fire a single shot at it, the dragon is rolling somewhere in the 5-7 hit range (could roll more, but more than likely will not. Limits for weapons including smartlinks are in that range already - and for sniper rifles with smartlinks that goes up even more. (not to mention, I am positive there will be mods for guns that increase accuracy)

So - you can hit the thing without using Edge even if all you use is a single bullet. Fire full auto at it, and now instead of rolling 16 dice to dodge, it rolls 7. Eminently hittable.

Not sure if you want house rules, but when I make the switch to SR5 (I haven't had an opportunity to run a game in the past year), the plan is to use dice caps instead of limits (right now it looks like 2x the current limit but that might be adjusted). It seems more useful to encourage diversifying and keep dice pools to a reasonable level, if you're capping dice pools directly and there is less knee jerk reaction to not being able to keep your hits and the long shot 8 success roll is still possible. It's also easier to remember, since it is applied all the time. Additional dice is still useful for dealing with penalties.

Combat Sense Force 10 minimum possibly more if really threatened, Full Defense (Add Willpower), Improved Reflexes (Gives the extra initiative it needs to consistently fight defensively, and adds three to reaction. So I am looking at a minimum of 37 dice for a fairly young dragon. No Initiatiion, no Foci. So by my calculations on a completely average day 12 successes. With Accuracy less than 12 you can have all the dice in the world, and it just won't matter. You could roll 20+ successes but since you have Accuracy 9 everything past it does not count. Sorry seems kind of lame and artificial to me. If the problem is too many dice, figure out a way to reduce the number of dice. If the problem is too many attributes you don't really use, get rid of them, blend them with others, something other than an essentially arbitrary cap on your successes, that really big critters don't have. It works fine when everyone has the same toys to play with, but when you look outside that small range where all metas are going to be happy, it breaks. Some of it is personal too, I prefer games that emphasize skill instead of innate characteristics. It is why I really liked older editions because there were always ways to make your starting point not matter, you could rise as high as karma would take you, you don't have that any more. You will only be as good as your limits let you be. Works well in a vacuum supporting one style of play, but losses the range it once had.

I have issues with hard dice caps too. I prefer if operating with a dice pool cap to let them roll up to a certain number and buy the rest, because when it gets past 20 dice it does get cumbersome

Well, it isn't quite that bad, as certain rules come into play. Force establishes the limit for most spells rather than the effect. Given an average Western Dragon's stats, it is probably going to net 8 hits on the spellcasting test for a F10 Combat Sense spell, which gives 35 dice based on the above (actually 31 since the dragon has to sustain both spells at a -4 penalty). One thing that Force does establish for detection spells is range. The range for a F10 Combat Sense would be 100m for an average Western Dragon. That is well within the Medium range (-1 to hit which can be eliminated by taking aim with a sight) of basically Assault Rifles and above. So against a decently ranged attack, the average Western Dragon only gets to roll 23 dice to defend. Use an AR or XMG on Full Auto and it rolls 14 dice to defend, netting an average of 4-5 successes or so. Honestly, the real problem is getting through its armor.

Also, if you're routinely running up against the accuracy of your weapon (after taking all adjustments into consideration) start using called shots or recoil intensive firing modes so you aren't losing so many successes.

Fighting dragons is supposed to be tough, you really have to plan for it.

So the answer is take your time with each shot or spray and pray, so your raw skill is not impeded by a completely arbitrary limit. Seriously I get your point, I just don't see how it adds to the game.

Actually upon further consideration I think I know what is really bothering me. The system works as is, but it is constructed with similar tactical elements to D&D 3.0/3.5. The way things interact are very interdependent and one screw up in follow on products will break it. With the history of the game I find it ludicrous to consider this will not happen, so I am essentially looking for ways to future proof my game. SR4 has the advantage of all of its screw ups being known, and well they ain't changing. I guess I have to determine whether the completely new slate with some interesting options and some clean up is more entertaining than using the devil I know.

Critias covered it all off pretty well. I'll add a few points of my own:



Sometimes. Some limits aren't based on stats at all like accuracy. There is perhaps an argument that stats should cost more to raise than a skill group because of it, but that's a pretty minor issue.




My advice is to not theory craft it. Too many people have written off 5th ed because they subconsciously assume that you always roll averages. In addition, edge is a far more valuable statistic than it used to be. You shouldn't just assume that if you're having a human that it will be priority E like you might of in earlier editions.



It's a balancing feature. In 4th ed your troll would always cart around a combat axe, even if he was a janitor he would happen to just have 'Mr Choppy' on hand at all times. Now he might decide that 'Mr Choppy' is less valuable that say a sword which has less reach and damage, but is more accurate as well as more concealable.



Hell no! Magic is much less powerful than before. For instance there are reasons why a mage might have other spells besides stunball and bolt these days.



So far the only thing I've wanted to house rule is alchemy because depending on how you interpret it it's either useless or ridiculously overpowered.



I don't get why anyone would. 5th Ed is pretty closely aligned to 4th Ed except just better crafted. The only thing you'll miss are the things you used to exploit or the fact that you can't have your cake and eat it anymore (at least less). You have to make decisions now which a lot of people resent because "Why can't I one-shot great dragons with stunbolt anymore with no drain!?"

The only other thing is that there are less options because there is less splat. That will change over time and what it allows you to do is take in the system one piece at a time.

Maybe because not everyone agrees with you on that opinion?

All I can say is that limits bring to light a very important point. You are not a god, you are a PC... and there are some things that you should just run away from instead of trying to kill it. Common sense and tactical thought become more important than "I attack the ork" no matter what game you are playing.

And my players know that if they decide to take on a great dragon, it takes a pair of big brass ones, an incredibly good initiative score, and a lot of luck because they have to one-shot the great dragon... that is the only shot they are going to get. 9 times out of 10 it will be a TPK when the dragon gets it turn.

Never had unreasonable expectations from my players, of course I don't consider it unreasonable that a character with 400 karma should get better results than a character with 100 karma if they concentrate on the same things. I already mentioned my worries that this edition seems to be headed in the direction of D&D 3E by making it much more miniature intensive than before, something I intensely dislike in any Tabletop RPG. If you need miniatures to play the game you have made it too complex, that's just my opinion if it works for you, great.



My players know that if they are good enough to think about taking out a GD they probably need to get better. When they are good enough, the won't look to, but if a GD indirectly screws with them, I don't want them to feel they are just screwed and need to take it lying down. Or that they have to have the perfect run, with the perfect plan, with the perfect rolls, and enough luck/Edge to have one shot. At that point I might as well have them sit back and enjoy me talking about how cool my Deus Ex Machina is at the moment, in this case a GD and no matter how hard they try they will always lose, because that is exactly what limits are really trying to tell them. I will reserve judgement until I see power creep in the supplements, or if I will see quality products without it. Since they made everything interconnected it just takes a couple of seemingly minor things to skew it one way or the other.

Well, unless the caster uses reagents. In which case Limit = #reagents, fun times with every spell whose effect is determined by net hits...

They do. This is one of those theory crafting issues I mentioned early. A character with a limit of 4 and a pool of 20 will roll more successes more often than a character with 12 dice. They just won't get any more than 4.



I don't see where this view comes from. Did 4th Ed have gun ranges? Yes. Movement rates? Yes. Reach? Yes. Magic rules limited by LOS? Yes. It even had abstracted chase combat which doesn't require miniates (as does 5th ed). Why would you think that miniatures are more necessary now than before?



Limits don't just apply to character...... and you can make them better, just like skills. In fact you can bet on the fact that there will probably be more ways to increase them in splat books which will probably go to far.... just like 4th Ed.

The fact that an extraordinary result for one is the average result of the more skilled character is my point. That average result is as good as it gets for the highly skilled individual. In essence this accentuates and makes the problem glaringly obvious. The only way to make it work is to...



...make previously important environmental factors, absolutely vital. Before these could be entrusted to one individual (the GM), now they almost have to be mapped out because everything about a characters effectiveness, the entire reason to get a higher skill is tied into these factors. Without these factors being accurately portrayed the character gets no real advantage over their less skilled opponent except an increase in frequency. This is exactly the kind of situation that breeds a demand for miniatures. This is exactly what happened between AD&D 2nd edition and 3rd edition. Tabletop to tactical game, and they finished the transition in 4th.



Just like feats in AD&D 3E you can design all sorts of untested additions that will completely break the game. I get it. I just don't like it at this time, and it really depends on how they develop it whether I ever will. Too much of it screams poor design to me. More streamlined, in some ways. More bits to break, and things to screw up in the future absolutely. Essentially they built the system in such a manner that it is way too easy to break it, and based on their track record they will.

Faelan, I completely disagree with your line of reasoning. I have played D&D since the red & blue box sets and I have always used minis. That is just my style of play. I am a tactical person and I need to see the situation visually. Now over the years things have evolved/devolved for me (i.e. using pieces of paper instead of minis, using glass beads, etc.) in fact I have now switched to VTT (virtual tabletop) programs and use icons. But in the same vein, I have watched games played where they never use minis... even in a 4e game! It totally depends on the group that is playing. In my group we always use minis, even is SR3, but only in combat situations so that everyone knows where the cover is, and where the exits are,... and to keep the GM's brain from frying (that would be mine btw).

Also the game-breaking with feats actually started in AD&D 2e... and there is always a counter to any "game-breaking" combo. You may not have been thought of yet, but there is one out there. I've seen D&D games where the wish spell/items are truly game breakers... however, in my games the players treat wish items as cursed items. It all depends on the thought process of the GM.

This is the most important, and least appreciated factor of any RPG.

Actually it depends on the players.

YMMV. I hate using miniatures, always have, always will, probably because I have had so many space starved games (the bowels of a ship are not an ideal place for them). So games that lean that way I either completely avoid or bend to work for my table. I have yet to have a group or play with a group that liked miniatures, just lucky for me I guess. Regardless the point is it does not look like 5E will work for me at this time. I have every 4E book, I like 4E, I like some of the clarifications in 5E, but really don't like limits. In other words I have zero pressing reasons to change, so why should I. Also while there is a counter to any game breaking combo it should not have to always be the GM fixing it. How many flaws does 4E have? Many. I have fixes for all of them in my games. 5E starts off from an even more challenging position mechanically to maintain balance, and quite frankly I expect them to at least screw up as much crap as was screwed up in the last edition...why would I sign on to fixing all those mistakes for my game again? Sorry incremental improvement is not compelling unless the game support is there, and based on there history with errata and FAQ's I am not holding my breath.

I too hate the use of minis, and so do my group. For me it spoils some of the imagination of a scene, though each to their own. We do use hastily drawn maps with circles and crosses on when we are struggling to picture the layout the GM describes.

We've played 3rd edition DnD, 4th Edition Shadowrun and 5th Editions Shadowrun without using minis and have not seen any need to introduce them. The only rpg I've ever found them to be necessary was 4th DnD and we put that down after one session never to be played again (and a wasted £50). I think 5th works fine without minis, or we wouldn't be playing it. FWIW Limits haven't really impacted on our game at all. I quite like the idea, but so rarely does anyone hit a limit that they may as well not be there, so if that's your concern then you should be fine. Maybe our party isn't min/maxed enough to run into the problems you envisage...

Good to hear. Most of what I envisage is a down the road issue, why run a game you know will result in issues when you reach a certain point in the campaign life is the question I am mulling over.

An issue that isn't there if people are improving their limits, which is part of progression.

Until you hit the wall. Plus people are far more likely to develop skills, now they are forced to also develop attributes to get the benefit of the skills.

You mean progression can't be completely one-dimensional anymore? Ye gods!

So obviously you are fine with that. That's your prerogative for your games. I am not fine with that, and that is equally my prerogative. Skill is something I always prefer to see emphasized over raw talent in any game system, not seeing how that is really the case any more, and yes I had this same problem with 4E where skills were capped at 6.

That's a totally legitimate position for you to have. However, I can't help but feel that you had already come to that position before posting your initial questions and that you are simply fishing for validation.

That's fine as well, it's just that you could have framed it as such and gotten what you were looking for.

Skills represent a larger overall contribution to your dice pools, however, given that skill+specialization can be up to 14/15 dice for mundanes, and for adepts (Improved Ability included) 20-22. And given that there's already a wide array of non-attribute ways to increase limits, characters have other options than increasing their attributes - and that variety will only increase in time.

One thing on limits: If you're hitting your limits consistently, it means one of two things. Either you need to improve the stats linked to that limit, or you need to make different choices about how you act. Limits were installed to make it so all the mechanics worked more similar. Previously, only spellcasting had a limit (Force). Everything else was unlimited. To bring everything else in line with that mechanic, they built limits.

And really, the idea has a basis in real life. No matter how skilled you are in something (skill and knowledge), you're not going to be exceptional unless you also have the inborn talent (your stats and attributes). Similarly, no matter how skilled a person is, if they're using the wrong or inferior tools, their performance will suffer. Skilled people will know how to coax more out of their gear than someone less so (called shots, adjusting weapon choke, etc, all doable because they have the extra dice to spare on these options). Is the limit system the best way of modeling this? Maybe not, but it's not completely out of left field either.

An example from my own group is that we have a berserker viking troll with a combat axe. He consistently hits his accuracy limit when making single attacks, so he started splitting his dice pool for multiple attacks. Now he attacks twice, doesn't hit his limit as often, and that second swing is always putting the opponent at a negative due to previous dodging. It racks up the modifiers quick for our team, given those negatives are cumulative. This works well with the rest of the team, including our face who, as he says "I shoot fast. Not accurate." So we rack up "dodged previous attack" modifiers quick on big bads, and they suddenly find themselves lacking in defense when it matters.

Everyone is going to have their preferences. 5E is forcing people to branch out and improve more than just one facet of a character. That's fine in my world. Clearly you aren't okay with that. That's fine too. Your decision to not move to 5E may be the best for your group. That's also fine. To each their own.

I have never fished for validation. I have never been an "Edition Hound", I really want to like the new edition, I am just having issues accepting the direction of the game, not a thing I have had an issue with in the past with pretty much any system.

Except only one third of that will ever matter...ever...unless you use edge. It ain't rocket science, the average is what is burning me.

One third, on precisely what basis?

Well, average Limits that I have encountered are in the 5-8 Range (I think I have looked at a Character than had a Mental Limit of 10, which is the highest I have seen)... If you can get, as a Starting Character (and I know that you can), a DP of 18-20... then you are potentially losing hits. Sadly, I have witnessed many games where a DP of that magnitude can often gain 12+ Hits (did so last night with a DP of 17 with NO EDGE expenditure, though it is an SR4A Game currently). So, the Limits of the Character in SR5 would have denied me the benefit of that pretty awesome roll. Even if it is a fluke. The dice are rolled often enough that such things will happen on a routine basis if you have enough people involved (Hell, I have seen Small DP's net hits equal to their DP often enough to know that I would be pretty peeved to lose 2-3 Hits routinely). Maybe it won't ever happen in SR5, but I am not going to hold my Breath, since I see it happen in each and every game session at least a few times.

Exactly what my thinking on the matter is since I have had a very similar experience at the table.

I'm sorry, but the idea that someone would have a skill that high and do nothing at all about their limit is frankly disingenuous. Maybe they don't want to raise attributes, but they'd certainly be doing SOMETHING about it.

If an Adept has that 20 dice from skill and specialization, and an attribute of 4 (since you want characters who don't really focus on attributes), that's 24 dice. Now, they are going to want to crank their limit pretty high - up to about 11, for example, if they want to be losing hits less than 10% of the time. So they find thigns that help them increase that limit.

Not trying to be disingenuous, just looking at costs. Attributes are expensive, skills are cheap comparatively. As to doing SOMETHING about it please share, if you know something we don't I would love to hear it.



Once again how? Outside of jacking up Attributes is there any way (I know you can get 1 for an Adept Power)? 24 dice with an 11 limit is still going to result in blow through at lest at my table. My players often get pretty lucky, without Edge.

I totally forgot about dual wielding. That's the best way to handle high dice pools.

Lets say we got our munchkin Street Sam, 10 agility, 12 skill, so 22 dp. 11dp per hand. We tack on some situational bonuses; 2 specialization, 2 smartlink, ambidextrous (so we can ignore the off hand penalty); so that's now 15dp per hand.

Lets say we're dual wielding the SCK Model 100, which has an accuracy of 7. The odds of getting over 7 hits is something like 9% or something. Meaning pretty unlikely, but lets say we want it even lower than that. Sadly, we spent our free action to dual wield, so we won't be able to do a called shot, but what we can do, since we're using SMGs, we can do a full auto burst. The SCK only has 1RC using its folding stock, so lets add some more RC. Gas Vent 3, and a Shockpad for a total of 5RC. Then since we're a munchkin we'll probably have 10 str so that's 5 natural RC, so that's 10 RC, so our first burst will sadly not take any recoil. However, our target does take a -9 to dodge from the first gun's burst, and a -10 from the second gun's burst.

I'm going to be honest, if you are at the point of the game, where you are firing fullauto long bursts, while dual wielding, and your biggest concern is limits. I just have no idea what it is you think you are going to have a problem with. I guess a dragon would put up a good fight, but...shouldn't they?

Things that increase Inherent Limits:

Indomitable: +1 to an Inherent Limit; may be taken 3 times, with the cumulative +3 being to 1 Limit or split as the player likes
Special Work Area: +2 to Mental Limit while working in the space
Novacoke: +1 to Social Limit
Enhanced Articulation: +1 to Physical Limit
Tailored Pheromones: +Rating to Social Limit
Mnemonic Enhancer: +Rating to Mental Limit
Hydraulic Jacks: +Rating to Limit for jumping and sprinting
Skillwires Wireless Bonus: +1 to relevant inherent limit
Medkit: +Rating to limit on First Aid tests
Autopicker: +Rating to limit when picking mechanical locks
Spatial Recognizer: +2 to limit on Perception tests to locate source of sound
Audio Enhancement: +Rating to limit on aural Perception
Vision Enhancement: +Rating to limit on visual Perception
Shopsoft: +1 to Social Limit for Availability and Negotiation tests to buy and sell items in 'soft's category.
Mapsoft: +1 to Limit for Navigation in their area
Datasoft: +1 to Mental Limit on related Knowledge tests.
Thermal Damping: +Rating to limit on Sneaking against thermo.
Chameleon Suit: +2 to limit when making Sneaking tests to hide
Psyche: +1 Mental Limit
Nitro: +2 Physical Limit
Kamikaze: +2 Physical Limit
Jazz: +1 Physical Limit
Deepweed: +1 Mental Limit
Street Cred: Bonus to Limit in all Social Tests where reputation would be known.
Voice Control: +Level to Social Limit
Improved Potential: +Level to Limit of choice


So... A lot more than one Adept power.



Right, I was grabbing a statistical number: That dice pool would roll 12 or more successes 6.77% of the time. Take the limit to 12, and you're looking at losses 2.84% of the time, or 1.03 at 13.

Impressive certainly more than I thought, but just another thing to buy so they can use their skill. I guess if the intent was to make people diversify they achieved it. I'll wait and see what else comes down the pipe. Right now it seems like they want you to play an augmented character, or a drug addict, and everyone will be running around with Indomitable. I get why they did it, but I will reserve judgement until I see more.

Raising skills is not cheap, as raising a skill group costs the same as raising a stat.

So what you're proposing is that you may want to spend say 14 karma raising a melee skill from 6 to 7, but not spend 20 karma to raise your agility from say 3 to 4 which raises your dice pools on almost ALL the physical skills in the game and your limit (potentially) AND choose not not raise your edge and then be upset with the system because you now have a crappy limit? That seems pretty counter intuitive.

Can I ask something? If run and gun has a karma cost for raising a weapon's limit will that make the system more acceptable?

Actually, in hindsight I'm kind of amazed that specializing in a weapon doesn't already do it.............

That may be a good houserule to consider when you figure a specialist is going to squeeze that little bit more out of the weapon than someone just walking up and picking up a weapon they are only moderately familiar with.

Certainly, it will go a long way towards helping it, of course if everyone wants it, well that is generally considered poor game design.

In most of my games Skill Groups are quickly abandoned after character creation. Some players will stick with them, they are also the ones who will raise Attributes with karma, while the rest of the group goes for the quick joy of getting lots of dice to roll by raising a single skill in that skill group. If a GM is really pushing them the immediate need of more dice is the slot that is going to get filled instead of the carefully picked "greater benefit", since the benefit that pays immediate dividends will likely be the one keeping them alive.