Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR4.5?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
fistandantilus4.0
Every time I turn around on these boards, I see something else that someone doesn't like about the mechanics of SR4 , be it skill caps, the technomancer and how they work, the strength of spirts, on and on. It seems that everything is rule based, and that these are the sorts of things that could have been ironed out with a little more time and care. Am I off base on this? I don't have the book yet (he keeps telling me next Friday!), so I'm not talking from my personal view point, jsut what I have seen thus far.

So I'm sitting here wondering if this could possibly go the way of D&D. They realized that some of the rules they left in with their new edition just didn't work right, and sold a revamped version. Anyone think that this is likely? Or would they possibly revise such weird things as the strength of spirits in Errata? Are spirits supposed to be that powerful !? (Sorry off topic)

I know at some point Adam or Bull or someone is going to say "no, there are no plans for a SR4.5", but there weren't any plans for a SR4 for the longest time either. ANd then there it was. Thoughts?
Rotbart van Dainig
Seriously, I doubt that:
The 'Errata' on M&M showed that if FP sees fit, they have no problem to revamp rules completely between print runs of the same version.
blakkie
The things that would fit into a 3 to 3.5 type transition are relatively few among issues people are talking about here.

Remember that 3 and 3.5 can be played nearly seamlessly side-by-side, outside of a few Feats that changed requirements, functioning, or disappeared, characters were virtually untouched. A good number of things here that people are discussing are deeper changes than that. Some like your spirit example can be errataed if they want to.

EDIT: Plus what Rotbart said, only i think/hope they would be a bit more conservative with limits on changes to the BBB.
fistandantilus4.0
Part of me hopes that they woulnd't. Part hopes they would. Perhaps I'll see more clearly when I have it in fromt of me. But I hate major errata changes. Really, what are they gonna do, issue a book of revisions, and call it the "Epic Runners handbook"? Then use that to have the option of no skill caps? I dunno, I'm dissillusioned at the momnet I think, Thanks for the feedback.
Rotbart van Dainig
The way the system is defined does not allow to remove those caps without removing the definitions in the first place.

And a supplement that redefines the main book is, well, ungood.
SirBedevere
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
The way the system is defined does not allow to remove those caps without removing the definitions in the first place.

And a supplement that redefines the main book ist, well, ungood.

Double plus ungood cyber.gif
fistandantilus4.0
I agree, which is why I was wondering whether they would issue an 'apology edition', much like D&D3.5 and the last Highlander, or if they would just take the mess and run with it.
Rotbart van Dainig
The latter, I presume... for some factors:
First of all, they couldn't afford it - neither money-, nor image- wise.
Second, in fact SR4 is more 'concise' than 'messy', so the subjective need of in-depth-change is limited to a minority, judging even from the polls... and thus wouldn't pay off.
blakkie
The stat caps can be entirely a non-issue for Fanpro, if they want it to be. From a marketing/costs POV i can't see them putting out something other than a optional sidebar in one of the books.

There is already a mechanism readily in place for raising the cap [at a heineous karma cost]. Allowing post chargen purchase of multiple Exceptional Attributes, and allowing them to stack up until reaching the highest metahuman natural maximum. So 10 Bod, 8 Agil, 7 Will, and so on. There aren't that many Attribute_A+Attribute_B tests, and the most common of casting drain would only end up at most 2 die higher than current max.

EDIT: Actually, i guess the highest metahuman natural maxes are Bod(11), Agil(9), Will( 8 ), because they can normally stack an Exceptional Attribute on top. Also allow 2 Luckys total for non-humans, and the 1 Lucky normally allowed for a Human.

EDIT2: Will( 8 )+Cha(9) is actually 2 higher than current max, changed above to reflect.

Then also allow buying up all the natural skill limits by 1 via that Quality (with an increase in natural skill raising the max skill from 9 to 10, this is not clearly stated in the rules, but have it happen). All resulting Attribute+Skill pools would then all sit within the range that they currently can reach, although a given character would be able to hit all the maximums instead of only one of them.

That extention would sink hundreds of points in karma. The PC would still grow stats ever-so-slowly, and Mages (and maybe Technos and Adepts) might still be dropping karma into Magic/Resonance instead, but the option would be there.

Now whether this would work or not? *shrug* But it does seem to hold some possibility since it utilizes and should fit inside the existing architecture.
fistandantilus4.0
wow blakkie, a post without an ounce of sarcasm. Just wow.

Thanks, that was pretty much what I as looking for on at least one issue. Even if it is an atrocious amount on karma to throw in, I would like some way for PC's to progress beyond 6. That helps. My biggest beef I guess is that it's still sams-stop-here where magic-types technically have unlimited advancement. But thank you, that was very helpful. cookie for you.
blakkie
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Sep 14 2005, 04:46 AM)
wow blakkie, a post without an ounce of sarcasm. Just wow.

Too bad you couldn't manage to string it into a 2 posting streak, we could have tied the DSF record. frown.gif wink.gif

P.S. I owe it all to mom, the academy, and the fact there weren't any tards around that needed a kick in the ass.

EDIT: The real kicker? I had already posted about that a couple of times here, just not quite as much detail.
fistandantilus4.0
you forgot God. Even gangsta-or'zet-rappers thank God.
blakkie
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
you forgot God. Even gangsta-or'zet-rappers thank God.

Oh ya, her too. cool.gif
NightmareX
Actually, I would have no problem with SR4 if they came out with another Companion that included a bunch of optional rules for tweaking the system to an individual's taste (ala Unearthed Arcana).
Rotbart van Dainig
To some extent, the even did that in the main book?
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (blakkie)

EDIT: The real kicker? I had already posted about that a couple of times here, just not quite as much detail.

try wading through all the pages and pages of gripes some time and see if you can find something coherent. It's that "as much detail" that makes it worth while. This whole SR4 thread thing needs to be ...... condensed... even.... streamlined... wink.gif

blakkie
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
To some extent, the even did that in the main book?

There certainly are pile of sidebar suggestions in there for how the GM can adjust game feel, especially in the combat section.

Even in the rules themselves there is a lot of stuff that is suggested as a possible way to do something. Not just Edge, but things like how many Extended Test rolls are allowed. They suggest that there be a limit, an suggest that it be the number of dice in the dice pool. But i doesn't come out and say you must do this or use that number.
blakkie
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Sep 14 2005, 05:49 AM)

EDIT: The real kicker? I had already posted about that a couple of times here, just not quite as much detail.

try wading through all the pages and pages of gripes some time and see if you can find something coherent. It's that "as much detail" that makes it worth while. This whole SR4 thread thing needs to be ...... condensed... even.... streamlined... wink.gif

It's easy to get the grain from the chaff. Just go to one of the pages and Edit->Find "blakkie". rotate.gif wink.gif
fistandantilus4.0
now if only we could delete next.... wink.gif
Grinder
QUOTE (blakkie)
Remember that 3 and 3.5 can be played nearly seamlessly side-by-side, outside of a few Feats that changed requirements, functioning, or disappeared, characters were virtually untouched.

He! My Ranger's hit die had been downgraded from d10 to d8. That really affects my char wink.gif
blakkie
QUOTE (Grinder @ Sep 14 2005, 05:37 AM)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Sep 14 2005, 10:01 AM)
Remember that 3 and 3.5 can be played nearly seamlessly side-by-side, outside of a few Feats that changed requirements, functioning, or disappeared, characters were virtually untouched.

He! My Ranger's hit die had been downgraded from d10 to d8. That really affects my char wink.gif

But that's only ever 2hp because in 3.0 nobody ever actually took a second level in Ranger. Just 1st to get those freebie Feats. wink.gif

Ya, that was a bit of a hyperbole that it was just the Feats. Plus i tossed in the advertizer's get out of jail free card, "virtually". wobble.gif But that was most of it, don't think they dropped any spells. Just changed a bunch of durations. You didn't actually convert your Ranger over, did you? I would think you'd just keep trucking using the old progression, otherwise you'd have to redo all his bonuses.
Grinder
You wish. I had to re-create my Ranger. He wasn't the same after it... indifferent.gif

But we started a new d&d campaign last week, using the Eberron setting, with new characters. I stuck with the ranger, but this time he's a shifter (the former one was an elf).

Never kept track of all the changes between D&D 3.0 and 3.5, though. All i cared for was my ranger. wink.gif (Thank god i'm no GM at D&D).
Daishi440
haste got nerfed, as did harm.

Both good changes, but nothing that couldn't have been done with a pdf on the website.

3.5 was just a money spinner. "I know we will get everyone to buy the same three books again with the same content, and they will thank US for it"

Wizards are good at marketing that's for sure.
NightmareX
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
To some extent, the even did that in the main book?

Yeah, obviously not enough to fix the problems the new system has. If they did, we wouldn't be here bitching about it. wink.gif
sapphire_wyvern
QUOTE (Daishi440 @ Sep 14 2005, 10:51 PM)
haste got nerfed, as did harm.

Both good changes, but nothing that couldn't have been done with a pdf on the website.

3.5 was just a money spinner. "I know we will get everyone to buy the same three books again with the same content, and they will thank US for it"

Wizards are good at marketing that's for sure.

Haste? *Nerfed*? rotfl.gif

It wasn't nerfed, it just changed. Sure it's not a great spell for mages anymore. But it affects one target per caster level. It's a whole party buff! In 3E, it only benefited one target. At party level 5 it effectively doubles the number of attacks the party can put out, and it's not much less significant later on either.

Anyway, near 100% of the changed content in 3.5 Core Books *was* put on the website, for free. It's called the System Rules Description, and it's still available. No-one actually had to buy the 3.5 core books if they had 3E unless they wanted pretty hard copies or didn't know about the SRD.

Anyways, that's more than enough about d20. Shall we talk about SR now? smile.gif
blakkie
QUOTE (NightmareX @ Sep 14 2005, 06:52 AM)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Sep 14 2005, 06:20 AM)
To some extent, the even did that in the main book?

Yeah, obviously not enough to fix the problems the new system has. If they did, we wouldn't be here bitching about it. wink.gif

Er, ya. Perfection would stop the bitching on DSF. Or maybe people would just move onto complain about Fanpro providing a crappy Cab service to the store to buy the book. When it was pointed out that Fanpro wasn't involved with that aspect of the buying experience the marketing gurus would come out of the woodwork. They would lambast Fanpro for lack of supporting their Paying Customers™ needs, and how not arranging taxi partners was a critical mistake that would lead shortly to the death of the SR product.
Grinder
Or we would complain about the release dates FanPro gives us and never hits. biggrin.gif
Xenith
DnD in a Shadowrun forum? rotfl.gif

I prefer Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed (not to be confused with Unearthed Arcana) or Arcana Evolved for now. I like the spell system and they the feats are set up... classes are certainly different but I enjoy new, unique ideas. smile.gif

I doubt there will be an SR4.5. Despite my complaints there's really not need for it. A few house rules easily compensate for whatever style of progression the GM prefers.

Ish good stuff. grinbig.gif
JongWK
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
So I'm sitting here wondering if this could possibly go the way of D&D. They realized that some of the rules they left in with their new edition just didn't work right, and sold a revamped version.

It wasn't exactly like that. As said by Sean K. Reynolds and Monte Cook, this "3.5" gimmick had been planned from start, when 3E was being discussed and designed.
NightmareX
QUOTE (Grinder)
Or we would complain about the release dates FanPro gives us and never hits. biggrin.gif

Ah, they're just following FASA's tradition. wink.gif
Grinder
I know, i know. Some things never change and all that.
biggrin.gif
Grinder
QUOTE (Xenith)
DnD in a Shadowrun forum? rotfl.gif

I prefer Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed (not to be confused with Unearthed Arcana) or Arcana Evolved for now. I like the spell system and they the feats are set up... classes are certainly different but I enjoy new, unique ideas. smile.gif

I doubt there will be an SR4.5. Despite my complaints there's really not need for it. A few house rules easily compensate for whatever style of progression the GM prefers.

Ish good stuff. grinbig.gif

Which one do you recommend? Arcana Unearthed or Arcana Evolved? The latter is the newer version, right?
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Grinder)
Which one do you recommend? Arcana Unearthed or Arcana Evolved? The latter is the newer version, right?

Arcana Evolved is the most recent version of the product, and was built off of the 3.5 SRD whereas Unearthed was built off of the 3.0 SRD. Monte Cook's company has a second aternate players handbook, called Iron Heroes, that does for melee combat what Arcana Unearthed/Evolved did for spellcasting.
Xenith
Arcana Unearthed and Evolved are basically the same thing... but one has some additions like new classes, levels up to 25th (kind of a different limited "epic" progression.. its ok), new races from the first, and set further in th time line. The slightly older one is less expensive but Evolved has a history and such which came in a seperate book in Unearthed.

I might add that I can't stand Iron heroes.. though the magic system in that one looked interesting a first glance. Too much pure hack and slash for my taste.
snowRaven
The problem with the SR4 system isn't really the skill caps - those are easy to work around, or work with.

The rules-based issues that may need changing/clarification mostly regard combat and cyber, as well as possibly char-gen.

The issues as I see them in the rules and on the boards:
1) Spirits - insanely powerful at high force, and semi-easily conjurable at high force by a mid-level mage. Plus, we may need a banishing fix for free spirits.

2) Technomancers - confusion regarding how that can be created without cyber, and why cyber reduces their resonance.

3) Ammo - EX seems too powerful, and possibly some of the other ammo types as well.

4) Magic/Technomancer ability may be too cheap at char gen, and the discrepancies in costs between attributes and skills BP vs. Karma may have unforeseen effects.

5) the 'max 1.5 times skill' limit for dice needs a clarification with definite examples.

6) The 'essence cost/2' thing for the lowest of cyber or bio can be a can of worms that I'd rather see a change on.

7) Beta grade cyber just became crappier, wtf? (Not much of an issue, really, unless you plan on converting chars.)

I tried to list the potential problems in order of severity, with the last being a non-problem. I'm sure there a few things I missed, and I might have misinterpreted something I listed above.
Narmio
QUOTE (snowRaven @ Sep 14 2005, 03:34 PM)
The problem with the SR4 system isn't really the skill caps - those are easy to work around, or work with.

The rules-based issues that may need changing/clarification mostly regard combat and cyber, as well as possibly char-gen.

The issues as I see them in the rules and on the boards:
1) Spirits - insanely powerful at high force, and semi-easily conjurable at high force by a mid-level mage. Plus, we may need a banishing fix for free spirits.

2) Technomancers - confusion regarding how that can be created without cyber, and why cyber reduces their resonance.

3) Ammo - EX seems too powerful, and possibly some of the other ammo types as well.

4) Magic/Technomancer ability may be too cheap at char gen, and the discrepancies in costs between attributes and skills BP vs. Karma may have unforeseen effects.

5) the 'max 1.5 times skill' limit for dice needs a clarification with definite examples.

6) The 'essence cost/2' thing for the lowest of cyber or bio can be a can of worms that I'd rather see a change on.

7) Beta grade cyber just became crappier, wtf? (Not much of an issue, really, unless you plan on converting chars.)

I tried to list the potential problems in order of severity, with the last being a non-problem. I'm sure there a few things I missed, and I might have misinterpreted something I listed above.

1) This can be (mostly) fixed by pretending the spirit designers weren't on crack when they gave spirits insane Reactions, but instead they accidentally left the x in there as a legacy from the running multipliers in SR3 stats. Change it to a +, and adjust the Initiative accordingly, and suddenly Force 3 Air Spirits aren't faster moving than Ghostwalker.

2) Technomancers not requiring cyber is just flavour, guys, stop belabouring it! Playing someone who can manipulate the Matrix with their brains is fun, just get into the spirit of it, and stop trying to find justifications for it in science. It's a fictional world, people! If it's fun, who cares?

3) This one is a big problem. I've done a number of tests and come up with this table:

APDS: +0DV, -6AP
Explosive: +1DV, +0AP
EX Explosive: +2DV, +0AP, Availability 14F
Flechette: +2DV, +6AP
Gel: +1DV, +6AP

That makes Flechettes still damaging (given that impact armour is usually 2 lower) but almost always likely to do Stun against armoured targets, which makes sense, because they're being hit by the force of a bullet, but spread out over a larger area.

Those who think that Gel rounds suck now, well, that reflects my belief that A) Gel should be at least as bad at going through armour as flechettes, and B) It should be some measure of a sacrifice to try and not kill opponents.

4) The ability is cheap, but the fact that they have to buy both an extra attribute (Usually 40BP) AND 30BP of spells/forms makes up for it. Also, with the attribute cap, I don't see a problem with people advancing attributes first. The game effects don't really change, and eventually they're going to be advancing skills instead, in fact, for most characters, reaching the max attribute rating will only be a point or two anyway.

5) Yeah, this is a problem. I say make Improved Ability fall under it definitely, to limit minmaxing (In my opinion taking more than 2-3 levels of Improved Ability is plain criminal twinking anyway), but other things can only be assessed on a case by case basis until we get some clarification. Either that or a big table of what fits and what doesn't.

6) I very much like this change. It's not really a can of worms, in fact it seems to work well in the examples I've tried. Especially given the low essence costs of bioware.

7) Bah, backward compatability in an edition that's as changed as this one is a pipe dream. Which would you prefer, the problems with SR3 being fixed, or sticking to all the legacy systems that made it so kludgy at times? Breaking with continuity allows things to be fixed. Just move with the times. And don't ever try to convert an SR3 character, I don't know why people go on about that here so much. It's just not really possible. Take the opportunity to play someone new!

Anyway, just my (wirelessly deposited) two nuyen. I'd better go remove the records of the transaction, too.


[Edti: Soddnig pytos]
Kremlin KOA
I kinda liked the old progression fo beta grade cyber

I just think alpha should have been at 3/4 cost

that way alphs would let you have "8" virtual essence
beta would allow for "10"
and delta for "12"
oh well
Kagetenshi
The new progression makes sense, or rather makes Deltaware not quite as much a waste of money as it was. Formerly it was the smallest jump in effectiveness with the largest jump in price.

~J
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Formerly it was the smallest jump in effectiveness with the largest jump in price.

And here I always thought that was a fairly accurate representation of the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Kagetenshi
No, it was just broken gear.

~J
snowRaven
QUOTE (Narmio)
1) This can be (mostly) fixed by pretending the spirit designers weren't on crack when they gave spirits insane Reactions, but instead they accidentally left the x in there as a legacy from the running multipliers in SR3 stats. Change it to a +, and adjust the Initiative accordingly, and suddenly Force 3 Air Spirits aren't faster moving than Ghostwalker.

2) Technomancers not requiring cyber is just flavour, guys, stop belabouring it! Playing someone who can manipulate the Matrix with their brains is fun, just get into the spirit of it, and stop trying to find justifications for it in science. It's a fictional world, people! If it's fun, who cares?

3) This one is a big problem. I've done a number of tests and come up with this table:

APDS: +0DV, -6AP
Explosive: +1DV, +0AP
EX Explosive: +2DV, +0AP, Availability 14F
Flechette: +2DV, +6AP
Gel: +1DV, +6AP

That makes Flechettes still damaging (given that impact armour is usually 2 lower) but almost always likely to do Stun against armoured targets, which makes sense, because they're being hit by the force of a bullet, but spread out over a larger area.

Those who think that Gel rounds suck now, well, that reflects my belief that A) Gel should be at least as bad at going through armour as flechettes, and B) It should be some measure of a sacrifice to try and not kill opponents.

4) The ability is cheap, but the fact that they have to buy both an extra attribute (Usually 40BP) AND 30BP of spells/forms makes up for it. Also, with the attribute cap, I don't see a problem with people advancing attributes first. The game effects don't really change, and eventually they're going to be advancing skills instead, in fact, for most characters, reaching the max attribute rating will only be a point or two anyway.

5) Yeah, this is a problem. I say make Improved Ability fall under it definitely, to limit minmaxing (In my opinion taking more than 2-3 levels of Improved Ability is plain criminal twinking anyway), but other things can only be assessed on a case by case basis until we get some clarification. Either that or a big table of what fits and what doesn't.

6) I very much like this change. It's not really a can of worms, in fact it seems to work well in the examples I've tried. Especially given the low essence costs of bioware.

7) Bah, backward compatability in an edition that's as changed as this one is a pipe dream. Which would you prefer, the problems with SR3 being fixed, or sticking to all the legacy systems that made it so kludgy at times? Breaking with continuity allows things to be fixed. Just move with the times. And don't ever try to convert an SR3 character, I don't know why people go on about that here so much. It's just not really possible. Take the opportunity to play someone new!

1) Yes, but we need an official errata on this, and possibly an adjustment on some other spirit related things.

2) From having read System Failure, where they are first created (no rules, people) and the SR4 text which references that incident, I'd say this is very much more than flavour. I like the fact that they exist, and that they can manipulate the matrix with their minds. But there are story-line ramifications here that are huge, and while knowing nothing of otaku was fine, we need to know more about technomancers since they are playable from the get-go. According to everything stated or hinted at, there are two requirements in order to be a technomancer: 1) a datajack. 2) being in the matrix during the crash. In addition, there is an element of what/who/how they were created, which I'm guessing we won't find out for awhile.

3) Yeah, my resolutions are similar, though not so drastic.

4) True...but the following scenario makes the extra cost moot: At char-gen, Mr.Twinky makes an Adept with 1 Magic, because he knows it's cheap-o as jell-o to increase that magic attribute cnce he stars earning karma...

5) Official ruling needed. We shouldn't have to guess as to what they meant (we did that enough in SR3...)

6) Haven't fully tested it out, I admit - but I see potential for abuse. In large, it's a very small issue though, and one I can certainly learn to live with (I've lived through all the previous bioware changes, so...)

7) Well, the problem with never converting a character is that as a Shadowrun GM since 1990 I have a huge, ever-evolving gallery of NPCs and former PCs that make the Sixth World so much more alive and interesting to my players - some of those characters have survived from 1st edition and evolved accordingly. To just crumple everything up and say - "5 years passed, they're all dead" is not what I had in mind.

I love alot of the system in SR4, but it's a new game system - not a new game. SR has an incredibly rich world, and with a few exceptions (like grounding) they've kept main ideas, or explained them away (like program carriers) when they've changed rules.
Narmio
QUOTE (snowRaven @ Sep 15 2005, 05:21 PM)
<snip>

3) Yeah, my resolutions are similar, though not so drastic.

4) True...but the following scenario makes the extra cost moot: At char-gen, Mr.Twinky makes an Adept with 1 Magic, because he knows it's cheap-o as jell-o to increase that magic attribute cnce he stars earning karma...

<snip>

3)

Drastic? Yeah, I know what you mean, the numbers are pretty extravagant. Until you actually do some tests and realise to balance things out, you *need* numbers in those ranges, as statistically flechettes should not do 1-2 more boxes of damage to heavily armoured trolls than regular ammo.

And Gel used to *reduce* your power, *and* double their armour. That certainly changed. Under the straight rules it was (on a purely statistical average) just as damaging as APDS.

These numbers make it actually worthwhile using the different ammo types in particular circumstances. Which stops the incredible horror of people using Flechettes all the time, and EX whenever they can get away with making some noise.

And the availability hike on EX is just to make it a measured resource: 14 is not that hard to get too, but it will mean everyone doesn't start with 500 EX rounds in their closet.

4)

I have no problem with this, for the simple fact that Mr 1 Magic Adept is going to be pretty crap. He can't take any cyber, because then he burns out immediately, which leaves him with the option of taking a very large number of skills. So he's a highly skilled person just discovering his powers. That actually sounds like a cool character to play, to me.
FrankTrollman
I actually like the fact that Explosive do the same damage as APDS, but Explosive are louder and more dangerous to handle. If APDS were dropped down to an availability of about 12, and EXEx rounds were pumped up to 14 or 16, it would produce a nice dynamic:

Explosives are cheap and do good damage.
APDS are more expensive and more reliable than Explosive.
EX-Explosive are much much expensive and bigger than Explosive.

Thus, people will actually use all three ammo types.

As for Flechette ammunition, adding +6 to armor is a bad idea. By that measure, Flechette is going to end up doing stun damage to unarmored enemies like all the time. If you want it to be "less effective against stiffened armor", you should give it "+Impact Armor" rather than a specific number. That way people who don't have armor on them turn into chunky salsa and people with decent armor watch it piff of their shirts.

Now, if you want to decently represent gel rounds, why not just go with a straight armor increase? Just a straight armor increase. So a gel round might give +2 DV and +9 Armor (applied against their Impact Armor). That means that against even unarmored targets it is very likely to inflict stun damage, but on average it does a little less damage unless your opponent is heavily into anti-ballistic weave. And if you score a really good hit, your modified DV could still exceed their armor and potentially kill a guy. Remember, these are "less lethal" rounds, not "non-lethal".

QUOTE
I have no problem with this, for the simple fact that Mr 1 Magic Adept is going to be pretty crap. He can't take any cyber, because then he burns out immediately, which leaves him with the option of taking a very large number of skills.


Remember, you pay Karma based on the actual magic attribute. So you can start a character with a magic of two and one point of magic loss from an implanted Commlink and cybereyes. In the long run, you'll be able to get a Rating 2 Synaptic Booster without losing any more essence. And since you only have a magic of 1, you can get your next magic for only 6 karma...

QUOTE
So he's a highly skilled person just discovering his powers. That actually sounds like a cool character to play, to me.


Actually, that's the character I've wanted to play since they announced that characters would have to buy up their magic stat like a normal attribute. It hacks me off to no end that such a character is "cheesy" under the SR4 character advancement system.

-Frank
Narmio
QUOTE
As for Flechette ammunition, adding +6 to armor is a bad idea. By that measure, Flechette is going to end up doing stun damage to unarmored enemies like all the time. If you want it to be "less effective against stiffened armor", you should give it "+Impact Armor" rather than a specific number. That way people who don't have armor on them turn into chunky salsa and people with decent armor watch it piff of their shirts.


But if someone is totally unarmoured, then no AP applies at all. -4 and +4 do the same thing to a naked guy: nothing. At least, that was my interpretation. So the only problem is that naked trolls get 7 armour. As for the old doubling mechanic, I actually like the idea that heavy APDS rounds will penetrate a fixed amount on all armour, and the much lighter flechettes will get stopped a fixed amount by all armour. It's a pity it doesn't work perfectly.

As for the Gel idea, well, if my interpretation of armour penetration is right, then that doesn't work. Otherwise, interesting concept.
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (JongWK)
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Sep 14 2005, 05:38 AM)
So I'm sitting here wondering if this could possibly go the way of D&D. They realized that some of the rules they left in with their new edition just didn't work right, and sold a revamped version.

It wasn't exactly like that. As said by Sean K. Reynolds and Monte Cook, this "3.5" gimmick had been planned from start, when 3E was being discussed and designed.

see that's just wrong. Thanks, now I hate all of my 3.5 books.

Grinder: I acutally liked the d8 move for HP's, being a fan of AD&D 1st edition. I don't think the ranger should be such a toe-to -toe fighter type. I like the changes.

Well, I did, until Jong told me they screwed me (yes, me specifically, now I'm bitter) on purpose.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Narmio @ Sep 15 2005, 07:05 PM)
But if someone is totally unarmoured, then no AP applies at all.  -4 and +4 do the same thing to a naked guy:  nothing.  At least, that was my interpretation.

This is correct. You only apply an AP mod if the target has any armor. Thus, Flechette shreds unarmored targets just as well as EX Explosive.

EDIT: Reference, SR4 p152, 2nd column, last paragraph:
QUOTE
Some weapons fare pooly against armor, and so actually raise the value of the armor - if the target is not wearing armor, however, this bonus does not apply.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
I actually like the fact that Explosive do the same damage as APDS, but Explosive are louder and more dangerous to handle.

You may like it, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

Moreover, it doesn't do the same damage, it does more.

~J
snowRaven
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
QUOTE
I have no problem with this, for the simple fact that Mr 1 Magic Adept is going to be pretty crap. He can't take any cyber, because then he burns out immediately, which leaves him with the option of taking a very large number of skills.


Remember, you pay Karma based on the actual magic attribute. So you can start a character with a magic of two and one point of magic loss from an implanted Commlink and cybereyes. In the long run, you'll be able to get a Rating 2 Synaptic Booster without losing any more essence. And since you only have a magic of 1, you can get your next magic for only 6 karma...

Yep, that was my point - compared to the magic 6 adept with few skills, the magic 1 adept with maxed out skills (not that you can 'really' max out skills at charg gen anymore, though) will rise quickly in power. Though depending on what powers you go for, the 1 point adept isn't as viable.

Of course, creating a low magic full mage can be even more unbalancing, if you twink out on drain resistance. Just start by overcasting and work up that magic quickly. After all, each point you 'save' at char gen equals 10 spells, or 2 skill points and a specialization...

QUOTE
QUOTE
So he's a highly skilled person just discovering his powers. That actually sounds like a cool character to play, to me.


Actually, that's the character I've wanted to play since they announced that characters would have to buy up their magic stat like a normal attribute. It hacks me off to no end that such a character is "cheesy" under the SR4 character advancement system.

-Frank


Yeah, that type of character IS great for play - I even started a campaign based on it in SR3, where the players started with low-to-zero magic and discovered/developed their magic powers during play. Lots of fun, and it can make for some very interesting choices of powers (best is if the gm lets you develop/discover your next power at a critical point during a run)

snowRaven
QUOTE (Narmio)
3)

Drastic? Yeah, I know what you mean, the numbers are pretty extravagant. Until you actually do some tests and realise to balance things out, you *need* numbers in those ranges, as statistically flechettes should not do 1-2 more boxes of damage to heavily armoured trolls than regular ammo.

Yeah, I know what you mean - I meant drastic as in 'drastic changes' from the canon rules. But the canon values are quite broken, so...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012