Main question: Why were skills broken up in SR4?

I've been spending a fair amount of time running old SR1 adventures in SR5. One thing that strikes me about SR1 is how few skills there are.

I know that the firearms skill was broken up in SR3, causing some contention at the time. But in SR4, most skills became more granular. They also killed off concentrations and created skill groups. I suppose, they essentially moved the base skills to what used to be specializations.

The thing is, because SR4 was such a massive revision to the rules, the reasoning behind the skill changes was lost in the noise. It wasn't really talked about at the time because there were bigger things to discuss.

So, why did this happen?

Was it worth it? I find SR1's skill list easier to digest. I also note that Shadowrun: Anarchy has a very similar skill list. So perhaps I'm not the only one questioning the change.

To the best of my understanding, the 4th edition split skills so as to have each of the so-called core archetypes (street samurai, mage, shaman, face, hacker and rigger) requiring about 7-8 skills each. That was supposed to balance out karma expenditures. While a step in the good direction, that indeed does no deal with the fact that mages and shamans have more attributes, initiation and spells to pay for, while hackers need no attribute.

Concentrations were already removed in the jump from 2nd to 3rd edition. That happened along the break-up of the Firearms skill into five different skills and Armed Combat into three, and the introduction of knowledge skills rules to address languages.

IMO, skill granularity is cumbersome when it comes to archetype core skills, and practical when characters develop secondary sets of skills. It allows a character to learn firing a pistol without becoming proficient with a sniper rifle, to know how to make a data search but not hack into black ice, and how to deal with social situation without mastering con arts. I think the 4th edition idea was to make the narrower focus the default choice, with skill groups as an option, while previous rules was rather the opposite.

Thank you for some insight, though I'd be interested in knowing more on the subject.



I consider that the opposite of preferable, at least from a complexity standpoint. The specialist is the one who should have to deal with granularity, whereas the dabbler should get the broad skill.

Shadowrun suffers from a couple of issues in regard to complexity. One is accretion. Over five editions, a lot of stuff has been added to the game, and not enough has been excised. The other is an increase of surface area over the core mechanics. While the various systems have been brought together under one roof, the number of attributes, skills, initiative calculations, modifiers, and now limit adjustments have grown. And that doesn't take into account the sheer number of qualities that exist in the game.

I mean, I love the game. But I often find myself wondering if it couldn't present the same depth with fewer moving pieces.

I personally found the balance and mix of skills in SR3 to be best. I've run some SR5 and like plenty of bits about it (and dislike a few as well, but I have some house rules that work out fine for me). But I do find myself drifting back towards SR3 due to the lack of Skill Groups and Skills and the balancing tricks between them, as well as the unique uses for many of the little sub rules that are designed to make specific parts of the setting work in the game and not just linked under the Core Mechanics umbrella.

Streamlining and "utility" are good things, very good things, but you can lose something in translation when they are applied. There does have to be a balance between Game and Simulationism and yeah, skill groups can help with that very well by providing a low degree of ability (or even a high one) across a total area of ideaology. But SR3 (and I think 2?) defaulting categories seemed to work well enough for that representing a natural ability to do things (okay, there could be some strangely wonky rolls but nothing is perfect).

There's an interesting debate to have here about game design.

Shadowrun player characters are expected to be specialists, with each team-member filling one specific role. So the entire toolbox is opened at chargen to create such specialists. And that's a big issue because it's a pain for a new player to create a character, or even for a mildly experienced one to create a type of character he hasn't played before. Gear lists, especially augmentations, and qualities to a slighter extend, are probably much more to blame than skills in this regards.

So I'd say there are three categories, where the most junior players are playing regular specialists, mildly experienced are starting to play dabblers, while it's the seasoned veterans who come up with optimized specialists. Only the third category really wants granularity.

But there is some sort of paradox in Shadowrun Specialization. The so-called "specialists" are not the most likely to have Specializations. A combat specialist may rather invest broadly in a number of combat related skills so as to be always able to fight, whatever the circumstances and the available gear. Since combat skills are going to be where he spends most of his karma, he is more likely to pay the higher cost associated with raising full skill or skill groups.

In 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions, being a "specialized specialist" was some option at chargen. Then, because skills, concentrations and specializations were raised separately, you could follow completely different template for progression. In 4th and 5th editions, specialization at fixed cost is just an extra proficiency. Without or without it, a specialist progression after that is exactly the same, just a couple of BP/karma behind or ahead of the curve.

On the other hand, dabblers or specialist from another field find an interest in specialization for its reduced cost, as they are limiting the karma expenditures for other areas.

With regards to character progression (at chargen or later) and if the legacy of SR rules was to be completely dropped, a tree model may bring an elegant solution, with cheap, broad skills at the lower level, narrowed concentration in the mid-range, and costlier, multiple specializations to reach the top of the league. A part of the cost associated with becoming a seasoned expert would come from the acquisition of multiple specializations to cover the entire spectrum of the skill.

But the skill divide would remain a key issue. A number of skills are broader than how you would reasonably expect someone to dabble into something. SR4 Piloting skills are the most terrible examples for this, as you should not be learn to drive cars, buses, bikes, tanks and hovercrafts all at once. Pilot Aircraft is an even worst offender for that. But SR3 was also guilty of this with its Athletics or Computer skills. So far none of the edition had me fully satisfied on this particular issue (the closest would be SR3, with firearms grouped into Handguns and Longarms, a change I houseruled at the time, and Computer divided into Data Search, Hacking and Computer, though overall I prefer SR4 attribute+skill, fixed TN system).

I also think a tree model could be the way to go, especially if the rating of specializations was limited by the rating of the skill. For example, you would have to have a Firearms 3 in order to get a Pistols 3. (You could also just have it cost more to buy a specialization above the rating of the skill). You could also solve some of the problems with pilot by putting prerequisites on some specializations.

For example, Pilot covers all vehicles, but anthroforms require special training. You must have at least 1 rank in the specialization, and perhaps you can't even do that until you have a base Pilot Rating of 3.

This mostly concerns me from a GM perspective. Fewer, broader skills make it easier to adjudicate situations as they come up.

I think something could also be considered in what you are wanting your skills in the game to represent. Sr3 has in it's core book 47 active skills, SR5 has just under 70 of which 50ish appear in the 15 skill groups. Curiously they both have a similar number of Combat related skills. This alone says something of the drift in philosophy in the application of game in setting.

Sr3 skill list tells me this is a game where getting into combat is something that is expected to happen. That violent exchange is a detailed occurrence in both the setting and the rules written for it. It also tells me that this option should be available to everyone (even if it's only taking points in a single skill) and that each character should be designed with that thought in mind. It also tells me that focuses outside of combat are valid options even for the combat dedicated character but there will still be choices to make between jack of all trades or specialist options, where if youre not dedicating to being a Street Sam you're focusing on 2-3 other skills, a combat skill and a few utility skills. In fact even the Sam is probably focusing on 3 combat skills backed up by a couple of utility skills. When added to the variable TN aspect it also means that even low skilled chars can succeed at relatively easy (or well prepared for) tasks that are still roll worthy.

The SR5 skill list tells (and from what I've seen Sr4 does the same) me that the game wants role specialists that are backed up by a few low skills to try and help them get by. The importance of the combat skills diminishes in light of the larger skill list. Characters heading into a role or archetype are focussing on 3-4 skills or taking a high rated Skill Group backed up by 2 other skills also relevant to their 'role', then a mix of combat option or two as well as either a couple of 'optimised' utility skills or splitting points to give some basic Skill Group accesses. Again the system that uses the skills influences things. To guarantee 1 success you need your Att + Skill to come in at 4 dice after modifiers, so the temptation rapidly becomes to load out your role based skill and attribute set to a minimum of 8 dice plus get some magic or ware behind that too. At fixed TN even a moderate dice pool (6-7 dice sr5) can feel daunted at achieving 2 or more success even with preparation.

In comparison the way done in SR3 (and SR2 from what I recall before it) saw more of a generalist feel to many characters with specialisation spikes in their roles, most of the example chars are 5-6 in their Role Skills with 2-4 in the utility / back up skills. Typically stretching out over 8-10 skills.

Sr5 tends to see most focused specialist skill at 6, rest of specialist skills at 5 (or sometimes role SG at 5/6), one or two skills that intersect with specialisation at 4 then a smattering of secondary utility abilities at 1-2. This with an attribute spread that shunts specialisation skills into the 10-12 dice pool and has the utility skills at a 3-4 dice pool. Often this spreads over 12-15 skills. The flip side being (as some of the example chars show as well) is 6-8 skills at rating 5-6 with little utility outside of that focus (maybe a SG at 1).

Both systems obviously have their Merits and Flaws for bringing to the table but after playing with both, GMing for both, I'm seeing people new to the game find more general playability in the Sr3 approach. They can be a specialist as they like AND influence things outside of their role in the team with a modicum of success (thus acting independently when needed) where as SR5 you get to be really good at what you do but tend to struggle more often outside of that focus. Of course I'm speaking in generalisations and it's very possible to make a competent multi skilled runner in the SR5 (or 4) rule set and to go hyper myopic specialist character in SR3 (or 2) but the natural flow, IMO anyway, of the skill lists and their rules tends to flow the other way.

SR3 was more lavish, skill-wise (as well as Attribute-wise). I am looking at Ice Queen, one of my SR3 characters, and she is a medic and face as well as a sorceress, with 6's in those areas - and that is with Priority: C skills.

SR4 onwards made Attributes more valuable, but harder to get to high ratings - in SR5, I find myself taking dump stats out of necessity even at Attributes: A. Skills are more diluted and have a higher opportunity cost, making character creation more difficult - it is a lot easier to either hyper-specialize to the point of being a one-trick pony, or overgeneralize to the point of uselessness. You have enough resources to be, with care, good at one "vocation". You can still create hybrid characters, but they require you to pick bits and pieces of various roles, rather than being a true multi-specialist.

Another thing to take into account is that the skill is just part of a whole.
When a street samurai with Automatics 5 buys a new gun, he'll get better damage/concealability but it won't be that different from his previous gun.
When a mage with Spellcasting 5 buys a new spell, he's got a whole new ability starting at a high level.

Interesting idea, but how would you handle magic after branching out into combat/healing/manipulation/detection (which are still quite broad)?

You wouldn't. In a three tier model, the skill would be Sorcery, with a Spellcasting concentration and a Combat Spell specialization.

SR magic has had one problem over since 1st Ed: A single point in Spellcasting makes the character a better healer, tank, damage dealer, cat burger, sniper, used car salesman, PI...
A sam on the other hand can put a point either into First Aid, or a combat Skill, or Infiltration, or something else.

So if combat skills branch out for example from "firearms" to "handguns" to "revolvers", the end for a caster would need to be similarly narrow, if the lowest resolution is "all combat spells" you've just made the difference worse.

Though I can't deny ritual spellcasting has its uses, it's clearly not an ability that often comes into play. Making Spellcasting/Ritual Spellcasting as a specialization level is 95% of a free point.

I mean, it's like dividing Firearms into "Firing" and "Firing from a vehicle" before considering any other level of specialization.

"Sorcery / Spellcasting / Spell type / Spell" would be closer to a "Ranged combat / Firearms / Pistols / Revolvers". It is slightly more specific, but on the other hand, the top specialization would apply to spells you know and use and that the gamemaster cannot take away from you, something the revolver specialist cannot be certain of.

Not to dismiss what is a valid point, but the fact that each spell costs additional karma changes the imbalance a bit. In some regard, buying the spell functions as a specialization on a spell category. A concept I think could be explored further.

One of the motivating factors behind a tiered skill system is that complexity should emerge as you invest in a skill. Broad, simple to understand skills at the trunk with limited options, and then branching into more complex concepts as you invest.

Martial Arts works this way, currently. You have to invest in a specialization before you can take the techniques of a particular martial art. I could imagine spells working in a related fashion. Certain spells could require the specialization. Or perhaps overcasting requires a concentration. These are just to illustrate the concept, of course.

Do mages actually need 7-8 skills? Sorcery, conjuration, perception, dodge?

That applied to the 4th edition. What I meant is that 7 to 8 skills were required for each archetypes to fullfill its intended role. Skills like Perception or Dodge would come on top of that.

The skills of a mage or shaman ought to be Assensing, Astral Combat, Banishing, Binding, Counterspelling, Ritual Spellcasting, Spellcasting and Summoning. Obviously, that intent fell flat because of rules implentation regarding skills like Banishing or Ritual Spellcasting that are useless or at least very rarely used.

That is part of what makes hybrid builds so appealing. You take the most useful skills for each build at high levels and the rest at low levels or not at all. With attributes at a level that all but forces dump stats, though, it is best to pick roles that have a synergy there. But there are good mixes out there, such as shaman/face or street samurai/covert ops.

Even for core roles, such as face, you can get a 6 + specialization for con and negotiation, etiquette and intimidation at 2-3, and be able to be an adept, have an Edge of 7, and have high enough Resources to get tailored pheromones: 3.

I don't think they intended to require 7 to 8 skills for every archetype, though. Some archetypes require high resources and/or Attributes, but don't require as many core skills. Street samurai, for example, have a lot of Attributes that need to be high and need high resources to purchase their augmentations, but can get by with 2-3 high combat skills (with the extra advantage that their core skill set is one that most other characters need to take as secondary skills). For a combat type with 7 to 8 skills, the weapons specialist is a better example.

For the way things currently work it does, but with the hypothetical system of even narrower advancement paths for non-mages the karma cost of spells would IMO no longer be a sufficient balancing factor.

Sure. The rest of the post you quoted discussed a possible approach. Instead of "Sorcery / Spellcasting / Spell Group", it could be "Sorcery / Spell Group / Spell or Ritual". Instead of buying a spell with karma, you buy a rank in the specialization for that spell.