Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Crunch on <08-21-13/0957:15>
-
So I'm finalizing my list of house rules for the 5E game I'm planning on running. Let me know if you spot any major issues.
1) The Missions Hotpatch FAQ will be in effect until the Errata and the SR5 FAQ are published.
2) Cyberlimbs cannot breach the Augmented maximum of Natural Attribute +4 under any circumstances. Cyberlimb armor may be subjected to Cyberlimb averaging.
3) A character may use the dodge action to defend against grenades and AOE indirect spells. Each hit moves the character 1m in any direction they chose, usually this would be away from the grenade but it can include diving into cover or even leaping to cover the grenade.
4) Damage in a crash is [Barrier or Bod (if a vehicle) of the thing being crashed into] + [Speed Rating of the Crashing Vehicle] - [Bod of the Crashing vehicle]
5) Touch spells will be resolved by rolling Sorcery + Magic with any relevant bonuses or penalties (ie +2 Dice for touch attack) defended by Rea+Int. No separate touch attack roll is required.
Not a house rule per se but a warning for summoners. Spirits can use edge to resist summoning checks. Whether they do is conditional, and up to the GM. Spirit's are more likely to use Edge in cases of oversummoning or if they are summoned to an area that would trigger an allergy (summoning a fire spirit into an area that's being doused by fire sprinklers).
-
So I'm finalizing my list of house rules for the 5E game I'm planning on running. Let me know if you spot any major issues.
1) The Missions Hotpatch FAQ will be in effect until the Errata and the SR5 FAQ are published.
2) Cyberlimbs cannot be customized above the level of current natural attribute. Cyberlimb armor may be subjected to Cyberlimb averaging.
3) A character may use the dodge action to defend against grenades and AOE indirect spells. Each hit moves the character 1m in any direction they chose, usually this would be away from the grenade but it can include diving into cover or even leaping to cover the grenade.
4) Damage in a crash is [Barrier or Bod (if a vehicle) of the thing being crashed into] + [Speed Rating of the Crashing Vehicle] - [Bod of the Crashing vehicle]
5) Touch spells will be resolved by rolling Sorcery + Magic with any relevant bonuses or penalties (ie +2 Dice for touch attack) defended by Rea+Int. No separate touch attack roll is required.
Not a house rule per se but a warning for summoners. Spirits can use edge to resist summoning checks. Whether they do is conditional, and up to the GM. Spirit's are more likely to use Edge in cases of oversummoning or if they are summoned to an area that would trigger an allergy (summoning a fire spirit into an area that's being doused by fire sprinklers).
I thought Dodge was only for melee attacks? Regardless, it is a good stop-gap solution. If I may give a suggestion to trend away from exact positioning, I use Suppressive Fire for a rules base. While Suppressive Fire gives a Reaction + Edge defense vs. hits rolled, grenades/AOE spells call for an Edge (3) Test (plus Full Defense if used). If Test fails, take full damage (modified by range from center, but not by hits).
Completely agree with the Touch spells rule.
-
I thought Dodge was only for melee attacks? Regardless, it is a good stop-gap solution. If I may give a suggestion to trend away from exact positioning, I use Suppressive Fire for a rules base. While Suppressive Fire gives a Reaction + Edge defense vs. hits rolled, grenades/AOE spells call for an Edge (3) Test (plus Full Defense if used). If Test fails, take full damage (modified by range from center, but not by hits).
Completely agree with the Touch spells rule.
Dodge works for both melee and avoiding ramming vehicles, it seemed like a more elegant solution than making a new 5 init interrupt just for grenades.
-
While I'm sure many will disagree with me, I do not like #2. It caps cyberarns and -legs, which already eat up 1 Essence each, at an effective bonus of +3 compared to your natural stats, which is less than the augmentation cap of +4. While excesses like 1 natural Agility and a 9-Agi cyberarm aren't desirable, something like the Street Samurai archetype (3/1 minimum Str/Agi, 5/6 natural Str/Agi, 11/9 cyberlimb Str/Agi) should still be allowed (+6 max seems reasonable to me, provided you don't put your natural attribute at the racial minimum or perhaps even 1 above).
If you're going to restrict cyberlimbs, I'd go with forbidding Exceptional Attribute unless you soft- or hardcap the attribute in question, and one of the following:
- Limit the effective attributes of cyberlimbs to your natural attribute value x2 or x3 (x3 allows 9/9 cyberarms for 3/3 Humans/Elves, but makes it easy for Dwarfs/Orks/Trolls to get high-Strength cyberarms (a Troll could get a max-Strength cyberarm while keeping natural Strength at the racial minimum of 5), while x2 requires you to softcap as a Human/Elf, put 3 Attribute Points into Strength as a Dwarf/Ork, or put 2 Attribute Points into Strength as a Troll, to unlock the highest Strength).
Maximum Agi/Str cyberlimb bonus compared to natural (x2): Human +4/+4, Elf +5/+4, Dwarf/Ork +4/+5, Troll +4/+6.
Maximum Agi/Str cyberlimb bonus compared to natural (x3): Human +6/+6, Elf +6/+6, Dwarf/Ork +6/+7, Troll +5/+8. - Go with the pre-modifier stats (racial minimum counts as 1, racial maximum counts as 6 (5 for Trolls and Agi), max value of cyberlimb counts as 9 (8 for Trolls and Agi)), and go with the x3. This means you'd need to invest 2 attribute points into Strength and 2 into Agility if you want a maxed-out cyberlimb. It's more balanced than the first option, but makes a little less sense fluff-wise.
Maximum Agi/Str cyberlimb bonus compared to natural: +6 ("1" -> "3", "2" -> "6", "3+" -> "9"/"8")
-
My mind is made up about the cyberlimb rules. Honestly the rules on Cyberlimbs are so broken and janky that if this doesn't fix them I'll just ban them entirely. The argument that players should be rewarded for stat dumping by allowing them cheaper augmentation as long as they manipulate the system harder is just flat out dumb.
-
This fix of yours is basically banning them since they are far too expensive to be worth a thing now. Don't see why you don't just ban them instead.
-
The Hotpatch, sure, there's some bleeding that needed to be stopped, but why not play out a 100 karma or so before deciding you need to fix everything that may not be broken?
-
This fix of yours is basically banning them since they are far too expensive to be worth a thing now. Don't see why you don't just ban them instead.
By limiting the customization to natural rating? They're actually still relatively cheap for the level of augmentation they give. It will effect a handful of abusive builds (Agi 1 (9) guy takes a hit). They compare pretty favoribly to Muscle Replacement (50K and 2 Essence for level 2 versus 41,000 and 1 Essence for a Cyberlimb with +2 Agi and Str with customization costs the Cyberlimb becomes the more essence friendly but slightly more expensive version and gives you access to the extra health box and tricks like cyber weapons) and are much cheaper than Toner and Aug for comparable essence (+2 Agi +2 Str with Toner and Aug would run better than 100,000 and.8 Essence).
Slipped by emsquared. Because 100 Karma of "play a Mystic Adept or die" seems pointless when they're quite clearly a problem.
-
My mind is made up about the cyberlimb rules. Honestly the rules on Cyberlimbs are so broken and janky that if this doesn't fix them I'll just ban them entirely. The argument that players should be rewarded for stat dumping by allowing them cheaper augmentation as long as they manipulate the system harder is just flat out dumb.
Except that limiting customization instead of the maximum attribute value of the cyberlimb still encourages dumpstatting, since I just realized both a 1/1 and a 3/3 character can have a 6/6 standard-then-enhanced cyberarm for 54k. At least my second suggestion puts the optimal point for cyberlimbs at a natural attribute value of "3" instead of "1".
This fix of yours is basically banning them since they are far too expensive to be worth a thing now. Don't see why you don't just ban them instead.
It's not that extreme (although it's close): after Agi/Str enhancements, you've still got 9 Capacity left for other accessories (like spurs so you can deal 9P/-2 with 1 Strength, an SMG, or a shotgun if you drop the Strength enhancement by 1 level).
-
[Except that limiting customization instead of the maximum attribute value of the cyberlimb still encourages dumpstatting, since I just realized both a 1/1 and a 3/3 character can have a 6/6 standard-then-enhanced cyberarm for 54k. At least my second suggestion puts the optimal point for cyberlimbs at a natural attribute value of "3" instead of "1".
Good point. fixed.
-
By limiting the customization to natural rating? They're actually still relatively cheap for the level of augmentation they give. It will effect a handful of abusive builds (Agi 1 (9) guy takes a hit).
Or you could just do a GMs job and not allow the AGI 1(9) PC at your table instead of severely nerfing an entire signature game style and mechanic.
...Because 100 Karma of "play a Mystic Adept or die" seems pointless when they're quite clearly a problem.
Your hyperbole is not an effective argument against again just doing your job as GM.
-
By limiting the customization to natural rating? They're actually still relatively cheap for the level of augmentation they give. It will effect a handful of abusive builds (Agi 1 (9) guy takes a hit).
Or you could just do a GMs job and not allow the AGI 1(9) PC at your table instead of severely nerfing an entire signature game style and mechanic.
...Because 100 Karma of "play a Mystic Adept or die" seems pointless when they're quite clearly a problem.
Your hyperbole is not an effective argument against again just doing your job as GM.
My job as a GM is to set effective guidelines. Which I'm doing by setting clear house rules.
The limit to cyberlimbs is actually relatively small for any case but the abusive ones.
The Mystic Adept stuff has been hashed out ad infinitum, and I know which way I'm going to go (which is with the official ruling).
Making these sorts of things clear up front instead of wasting the players time is part of a GMs job.
-
This fix of yours is basically banning them since they are far too expensive to be worth a thing now. Don't see why you don't just ban them instead.
By limiting the customization to natural rating? They're actually still relatively cheap for the level of augmentation they give.[...]
On a single limb, not including your Physical Limit, Sneaking, Palming, Movement Rates and so on. That single limb might be cheaper, but it gives far less bonuses to begin with, and you'd need two arms if you want to fire anything that actually has a punch. And if they ever raise their natural attribute, their limbs are now significantly worse off than an augmentation, plus longterm they cannot reach the +4 that someone with augmenting ware can get.
In the short term, this might seem like balancing, but if you look at the bigger picture, limiting the customized stats already hurts them at chargen and cripples them in the long run. So honestly, this houserule means cyberlimbs are only worth it for low-attribute short-term characters that don't bother with Stealth skills, it does not just hurt abusive builds (that are already punishing themselves to begin with, given everything a limb doesn't give), but hurts anyone who wants to receive a fair boost from a limb at a price.
-
This fix of yours is basically banning them since they are far too expensive to be worth a thing now. Don't see why you don't just ban them instead.
By limiting the customization to natural rating? They're actually still relatively cheap for the level of augmentation they give.[...]
On a single limb, not including your Physical Limit, Sneaking, Palming, Movement Rates and so on. That single limb might be cheaper, but it gives far less bonuses to begin with, and you'd need two arms if you want to fire anything that actually has a punch. And if they ever raise their natural attribute, their limbs are now significantly worse off than an augmentation, plus longterm they cannot reach the +4 that someone with augmenting ware can get.
In the short term, this might seem like balancing, but if you look at the bigger picture, limiting the customized stats already hurts them at chargen and cripples them in the long run. So honestly, this houserule means cyberlimbs are only worth it for low-attribute short-term characters that don't bother with Stealth skills, it does not just hurt abusive builds (that are already punishing themselves to begin with, given everything a limb doesn't give), but hurts anyone who wants to receive a fair boost from a limb at a price.
Look at the Cyberlimb averaging rules again Michael. Unless an action is spefically ruled to "require close coordination" then the Cyberlimb will always give at least a +1 to the general attribute. The Agi 1(9) guy is actually getting a full body agi of 3 in edition to his limburgher arm. I'd rather fix the problem in chargen and be generous in play then spend the time to analyze every action.
And again Agility DOES NOT EFFECT THE PHYSICAL LIMIT IN ANY WAY, so can you stop bringing it up in discussions about a system most easily abused in terms of agility.
-
My job as a GM is to set effective guidelines. Which I'm doing by setting clear house rules.
Actually your job as GM is to craft the mutual story-telling experience, which is generally the best when least confined by rules. The notion that nerfing cyberlimbs, which while janky are not at all broken, creates a better experience is just false and even lazy, when it could be solved by just speaking to players as GM. And the notion that any human (even your 7 REA + 4 INT + 4 Gym sammy) could leap (on average) 5 meters (a full meter greater than any recorded human ever has, when they still recorded that type of thing), but conceivably 7+ depending on Physical Limit (which is wayyyyy outside the realm of physically possible for a humans physiology), from a standing position is just pure ridiculousnessessness and not good for storytelling in the least. Why can't you make that jump when not having a grenade shot at you?
Damage in a crash, whatevs.
And with touch spells, I understand Magicians were spanked with the nerf bat, but does making up a nonsensical mechanic (what does Magic and your Skill at Sorcery have to do with laying a hand on someone) serve any purpose other than to coddle your own personal feelings? I doubt it.
The Mystic Adept stuff has been hashed out ad infinitum, and I know which way I'm going to go (which is with the official ruling).
And I said, Hotpatch is a given.
-
The Grenade rule is a cinematic tweak - the grenade rules are imminentily realistic at this point and I have no problem with them - but I like to give my players a better chance at survival even if it makes the game a little more A-Team than Kandahar. It's not so much a leap as a run and jump for cover.
The touch spell thing is simply my call on the confusion involving touch attacks by RAW either
A) Mages make an unarmed attack that is resisted as an unarmed attack then a spellcasting roll that is resisted as a spell casting roll
or
B) Mages make an unarmed attack roll that is resistes as an unarmed attack roll then a spellcasting roll that is unresisted.
I don't have an opinion on the issue. The house rule cuts at least one roll out of the equation and functions more like a ranged indirect spell so the consistency should make it easier to learn.
And again the Cyberlimb change will only effect fringe and abusive cases anyway.
-
Obviously I don't have a dog in this race which I'm glad for, and obviously you're not really interested in what people have to say about the rules you've already decided on, but cyberlimbs have their trade-offs (ESS loss, Social loss, only effective for 1 limb), and as long as someone isn't doing the AGI low(9) spread which you can stop by just saying "Nuh uh", you've instead invalidated an entire type of PC (which is not just a "fringe" PC, and even if it was, what is the value in not letting someone play what they want?) that is clearly meant to be a valid type of PC in the cyberpunk setting. Bad move.
-
Obviously I don't have a dog in this race which I'm glad for, and obviously you're not really interested in what people have to say about the rules you've already decided on, but cyberlimbs have their trade-offs (ESS loss, Social loss, only effective for 1 limb), and as long as someone isn't doing the AGI low(9) spread which you can stop by just saying "Nuh uh", you've instead invalidated an entire type of PC (which is not just a "fringe" PC, and even if it was, what is the value in not letting someone play what they want?) that is clearly meant to be a valid type of PC in the cyberpunk setting. Bad move.
I'm actually listening - note that I've already changed one rule based on the comments here- but the only concept I've "invalidated" is the one where the final attribite is over aug max of natural attribute +4. Would the rule be more acceptable to you if it simply acknowledged the Aug max rather than limiting customization? Under this rule characters can still have really effective cyberlimbs, cyberlimbs are just no longer the be and end of augmentation
The problem with your trade offs is that one and two are equally valid for all cybernetic augmentation, in fact they have a larger or equal effect on any other equivalent augmentation. As for 3 it's not even true, as Cyberlimb averaging doesn't work that way.
-
... the only concept I've "invalidated" is the one where the final attribite is over aug max of natural attribute +4.
That wasn't how your rule originally read, I don't think that is unreasonable.
-
Basing a houserule on a munchkin build is a bad idea when it also punishes more-balanced characters. The Agi 1 character only has a running rate of 4 meters per combat turn, he's an utter slug that will die fast due to not being able to dive into cover and not be able to get away from grenades and such. On top of that, I'd simply not allow such an exploitive character.
This houserule, as you originally wrote it, means you can't have 4 Agility with two arms of 9, which is actually a character that pays a decent price for the +5 Agi on his firing. If he doesn't boost his Strength of 4 above this number, he's paying 109k and 2 essence for the 9/4 limbs and an average Agility of 6. Instead, he could have gotten an overall 7 Agility with 69.75k and 0.75 essence. So he pays a significant price in nuyen and essence for those extra 2 dice and extra capacity, loses 1 dice on Sneaking and Palming and loses 3 effective Agility for calculating movement rates.
Instead, such a character would have 2 7/4 arms, which cost him 89k and 2 essence for 7 Agility on weapon checks, 6 Agility on Sneaking+Palming and 4 Agility for movement rate. For 69.75k and 0.75 essence he'd have the same 7 Agility on weapon checks, 7 Agility on Sneak+Palming and 7 Agility for movement rate. This means he's paying 20k and 1.25 essence, as well as 1 die lost on average-agility checks and 3 agility lost on weakest-limb-or-natural-attribute aspects.
His benefits in return are having spare Capacity which also costs nuyen to use, the option to spend 18k on after chargen to be able to get +2 Armor total from Cyberarmor, and +2 physical condition monitor boxes which are only worth it when an enemy does Physical Damage rather than Stun Damage. Meanwhile, chances are he gets targetted by Stun Attacks because he's an obvious Street Samurai, what with the cyberlimbs. And if he ever decides to spend karma to raise his Agility to 5, he ends up making his limbs a waste of investment since now they only have +2, whereas the Used Muscle Toner 3 would still give him +3 at that point.
Perhaps you took all that into account already, and still consider cyberlimbs viable options when it comes to raising attributes. I, however, think this is already a rather painful choice in the short term, given the alternative which is cheaper and better in many ways, including cost and essence, and as such very likely outweighs the few benefits the Cyberlimb gives instead. In the long term, the character is only destroying itself because now if it gets any general augmentations or raises its Agility or Strength, it's devaluating the use of its Cyberlimbs and making the decision to get them even more an utter waste. You don't replace Muscle Replacement/Augmentation/Toner when you raise your natural attributes since they keep adding the bonus, however these cyberlimbs would have to be replaced.
And again Agility DOES NOT EFFECT THE PHYSICAL LIMIT IN ANY WAY, so can you stop bringing it up in discussions about a system most easily abused in terms of agility.
I am fully aware Agility does not calculate into the Physical Limit. However, Strength does. I also mentioned the phsyical limit as only one of multiple downsides. Not to mention you brought up both Muscle Augmentation and Muscle Toner to begin with when comparing price. As such, there was no reason whatsoever to shout.
Leaving the shouting aside, since you want to focus on the agility-abuse I left out melee in the first part of my post, since that'd involve Strength and thus the Phsyical Limit.
----
I decided to try debating with you again, which I stopped doing after you claimed you couldn't see how it was insulting to suggest I'd throw a hissfit over not getting what I want from a GM. I wanted to see whether you were actually telling the truth about not having intended to insult me. In your post, you have treated me with contempt by telling me to look at a rule again, suggesting I haven't paid attention to the rules and don't know what I'm talking about. You could have simply gone "my problem is that with the averaging rule, the Agi 1(9) guy has 3 Agility for most tests". Instead, you chose to be confrontational by suggesting I don't know the rules well enough to provide meaningful input into the debate.
On top of that, you began to shout while you were the one who talked about both Muscle Toner and Muscle Augmentation. It's rather unfair to bring Strength into the equation and then complain I shouldn't bring up the Physical Limit. Now I consider you a person of decent common sense. So since you brought up Strength to begin with, I assume you knew fully well you had no right to criticize me for mentioning the Physical Limit. Which means you used it as a mere excuse to shout at me, rather than sincerely venting frustration. This is supported by you assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, rather than asking for clarification in a way as I have done above.
Given the extreme way you are treating me and expressing a condescending view, which is highly insulting and is not justified by my post in any way, I cannot help but assume you were lying when you said you weren't trying to insult me before. You appear to have a personal axe to grind with me and are using excuses to target me. As such, I will bow out again, and once more request you do not contact me, nor here nor on SRU. At SRU there are other volunteers you can contact if ever you need one. I do not trust my temper when it comes to dealing with someone who deliberately insults me and then lies about it, lacking even the guts to acknowledge their own deeds. As such, I do not have any desire to communicate with you regarding any matter, even official ones.
-
Michael, with all due respect, I never accused you of throwing a hissy fit. I was simply asking for a clarification of a statement in which you said - essentially- 'If the GM is wrong and rude that would bother me" and I asked you to clarify if it was the wrong or the rude that bothered you.
I have no axe to grind with you, although I will admit that having been accused of being insulting for asking for a clarification, and then ignored when I apologized I am a little on edge with you currently.
Re: the emphasis. We've had this conversation before and I feel like I've made it perfectly clear that the physical limit argument does not in my view counter the easy abuse of cyberlimb agility mods. The fact that you brought it up again here, while knowing that we'd had the discussion before, strikes me as disrespectful.
Now I've never contacted you at SRU - I'm not even a registered member of that forum - there is a user over there with the same username, but it is NOT me. If that's influencing this I don't know what to say, because I am not trying to offend you and you keep ambushing me with really emotional responses to fairly simple statements.
I am more than willing to deal with you rationally, I actually typically appreciate your comments, but I do not understand the abuse you are piling onto me at this point.
-
Michael, with all due respect, I never accused you of throwing a hissy fit. I was simply asking for a clarification of a statement in which you said - essentially- 'If the GM is wrong and rude that would bother me" and I asked you to clarify if it was the wrong or the rude that bothered you.
That statement is incorrect.
I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.
You asked him to clarify if it was "the rude" or the GM not agreeing with him that he'd object to, not "the wrong", thereby insinuating he'd walk away from a table over something as petty as not getting his way. The fact that you still say you don't see anything wrong with that reflects poorly on you regardless of whether you're telling the truth - either you actually think of him as that petty a player, which makes complete sense for him to be offended by, or you're deliberately painting him as that petty a player while feigning ignorance.
Re: the emphasis. We've had this conversation before and I feel like I've made it perfectly clear that the physical limit argument does not in my view counter the easy abuse of cyberlimb agility mods. The fact that you brought it up again here, while knowing that we'd had the discussion before, strikes me as disrespectful.
Hang on - so it is disrespectful for him to bring something up you disagree with, but it's okay for you to yell at him?
-
I thought the augmented max was +4 over your starting value. Wouldn't that mean an Agi 1 character can have a max of Agi 5 on a limb?
Even if he could buy a 9 Agi limb, he can't use it since it exceeds the natural limit of every race in the book. (Elf 7, Troll 5, everyone else 6).
-
I thought the augmented max was +4 over your starting value. Wouldn't that mean an Agi 1 character can have a max of Agi 5 on a limb?
Even if he could buy a 9 Agi limb, he can't use it since it exceeds the natural limit of every race in the book. (Elf 7, Troll 5, everyone else 6).
Since cyberlimbs have their own attributes, unless the Powers That Be change their minds about the whole thing, they're not restricted by the augmentation limit.
-
O_o The hell? Ya'll quick to jump behind Crunch when he agrees with you and adds eloquence to your arguments, and quick to jump down his throat when he houserules. I mean, I disagree with the guy about a lot of stuff (mostly for fun, truth be told) but based entirely on how he presents himself I'd put my money on him being a good to great GM. The only areas I can't be sure of is how his work-ethic and characterization are, and I can only infer how he interacts with his players, but I don't know that from anyone I haven't played with. Saying that he isn't "doing his job" as a GM is unduly harsh.
1) The Missions Hotpatch FAQ will be in effect until the Errata and the SR5 FAQ are published.
2) Cyberlimbs cannot breach the Augmented maximum of Natural Attribute +4 under any circumstances. Cyberlimb armor may be subjected to Cyberlimb averaging.
3) A character may use the dodge action to defend against grenades and AOE indirect spells. Each hit moves the character 1m in any direction they chose, usually this would be away from the grenade but it can include diving into cover or even leaping to cover the grenade.
4) Damage in a crash is [Barrier or Bod (if a vehicle) of the thing being crashed into] + [Speed Rating of the Crashing Vehicle] - [Bod of the Crashing vehicle]
5) Touch spells will be resolved by rolling Sorcery + Magic with any relevant bonuses or penalties (ie +2 Dice for touch attack) defended by Rea+Int. No separate touch attack roll is required.
1) Of course.
2) Augmentation rule is necessary. Despite my initial gut reaction, Cyberlimb armor may not be as broke as it initially appears. I'd personally hold off on house-ruling it, perhaps noting that it may be addressed if it becomes a problem.
3) Needs to be net hit, or every hit over a theshold of 3 just to keep it consistent with Grenades. As you have it, Grenades become nearly worthless, losing -2 DV per hit instead of a weapon's -1 DV per hit. You may also want to nix the Defense roll actually moving the person. This is to prevent people from throwing down smoke grenades or flashbangs as an expensive form of mass-movement.
4) Don't know crash rules, so can't say one way or the other.
5) This one I'm not sure I agree with. I'd make it touch attack of Agility + Unarmed vs Defense per normal for a touch attack. Roll Magic + Spellcasting [Force] vs the same Defense roll, with net hits increasing DV (if the caster wins) or decreasing DV (if the defender wins). Primary reason is that there seems to be an intent to tie touch attacks to the Unarmed skill, and this is the most elegant way I can think of that. If you want to eschew the unarmed skill entirely, then your houserule should be okay.
The Clarification: Just use it responsibly and not as knee jerk reaction. :P
As more general advice? Nab preliminary character concepts / items / etc they might be useing. No obligation, just for you to survey what your players are interested in. That way you know what rule systems you have to look at more thoroughly.
-
Then I'm fine with the house rule "the maximum augmented value for a cyberlim's stats (customization + enhancement) is the natural stat +4."
This would mean that the archetype street Sam would be limited to Str 9, Agi 9.
Str 9 because his natural Str is 6. (Saves him 13,000¥.)
His natural Agi is 6, but the max he can buy is 9 (base 3 + customization 3 + enhancement 3). (Customization can't be used to exceed the natural maximum of 6 for orks, and +3 is the biggest enhancement you can buy.)
-
O_o The hell? Ya'll quick to jump behind Crunch when he agrees with you and adds eloquence to your arguments, and quick to jump down his throat when he houserules. I mean, I disagree with the guy about a lot of stuff (mostly for fun, truth be told) but based entirely on how he presents himself I'd put my money on him being a good to great GM. The only areas I can't be sure of is how his work-ethic and characterization are, and I can only infer how he interacts with his players, but I don't know that from anyone I haven't played with. Saying that he isn't "doing his job" as a GM is unduly harsh.
"Ya'll"? You're going to have to be a little more specific than that, since only emsquared said Crunch wasn't "doing his job" - I simply explained why I didn't think one of the houserules was appropiate.
-
O_o The hell? Ya'll quick to jump behind Crunch when he agrees with you and adds eloquence to your arguments, and quick to jump down his throat when he houserules. I mean, I disagree with the guy about a lot of stuff (mostly for fun, truth be told) but based entirely on how he presents himself I'd put my money on him being a good to great GM. The only areas I can't be sure of is how his work-ethic and characterization are, and I can only infer how he interacts with his players, but I don't know that from anyone I haven't played with. Saying that he isn't "doing his job" as a GM is unduly harsh.
From what I can tell it's pretty much two that just want to argue and one who is just trolling today.
1) The Missions Hotpatch FAQ will be in effect until the Errata and the SR5 FAQ are published.
2) Cyberlimbs cannot breach the Augmented maximum of Natural Attribute +4 under any circumstances. Cyberlimb armor may be subjected to Cyberlimb averaging.
3) A character may use the dodge action to defend against grenades and AOE indirect spells. Each hit moves the character 1m in any direction they chose, usually this would be away from the grenade but it can include diving into cover or even leaping to cover the grenade.
4) Damage in a crash is [Barrier or Bod (if a vehicle) of the thing being crashed into] + [Speed Rating of the Crashing Vehicle] - [Bod of the Crashing vehicle]
5) Touch spells will be resolved by rolling Sorcery + Magic with any relevant bonuses or penalties (ie +2 Dice for touch attack) defended by Rea+Int. No separate touch attack roll is required.
1) Of course.
2) Augmentation rule is necessary. Despite my initial gut reaction, Cyberlimb armor may not be as broke as it initially appears. I'd personally hold off on house-ruling it, perhaps noting that it may be addressed if it becomes a problem.
3) Needs to be net hit, or every hit over a theshold of 3 just to keep it consistent with Grenades. As you have it, Grenades become nearly worthless, losing -2 DV per hit instead of a weapon's -1 DV per hit. You may also want to nix the Defense roll actually moving the person. This is to prevent people from throwing down smoke grenades or flashbangs as an expensive form of mass-movement.
4) Don't know crash rules, so can't say one way or the other.
5) This one I'm not sure I agree with. I'd make it touch attack of Agility + Unarmed vs Defense per normal for a touch attack. Roll Magic + Spellcasting [Force] vs the same Defense roll, with net hits increasing DV (if the caster wins) or decreasing DV (if the defender wins). Primary reason is that there seems to be an intent to tie touch attacks to the Unarmed skill, and this is the most elegant way I can think of that. If you want to eschew the unarmed skill entirely, then your houserule should be okay.
The Clarification: Just use it responsibly and not as knee jerk reaction. :P
As more general advice? Nab preliminary character concepts / items / etc they might be useing. No obligation, just for you to survey what your players are interested in. That way you know what rule systems you have to look at more thoroughly.
I don't particularly care for his house rules, but he's not a part of my group, so it's his call not mine. He wants to change it, that's his prerogative.
-
O_o The hell? Ya'll quick to jump behind Crunch when he agrees with you and adds eloquence to your arguments, and quick to jump down his throat when he houserules. I mean, I disagree with the guy about a lot of stuff (mostly for fun, truth be told) but based entirely on how he presents himself I'd put my money on him being a good to great GM. The only areas I can't be sure of is how his work-ethic and characterization are, and I can only infer how he interacts with his players, but I don't know that from anyone I haven't played with. Saying that he isn't "doing his job" as a GM is unduly harsh.
From what I can tell it's pretty much two that just want to argue and one who is just trolling today.
You're going to have to name names and explain yourself here - coming into a topic and saying "two of you are just looking to argue for the sake of arguing, and one of you is trolling" without any explanations as to why you think so, is something I consider trolling.
-
"Ya'll"? You're going to have to be a little more specific than that, since only emsquared said Crunch wasn't "doing his job" ...
Please don't put words in my mouth, ZC. I didn't once say he wasn't doing his job, I proposed talking to players as an alternative to a binary rule which was originally worded more harshly than it is now.
-
I'll have to think about making the grenade rule net hits. I'm not sure how I feel about it (again that is expressly a cinematic/party survivability tweak I don't think the rule is bad as written, I just want something a little less lethal).
-
The Dodge rules makes sense against grenades, since the rules system is a discrete representation of a continuous situation, meaning you'd see the grenade coming and have a chance to create distance (since scatter isn't dependent on distance, the time needed for the grenade to land might be constant enough that you won't have to fiddle with dodge bonuses/penalties depending on the Range) before it lands.
It might be different with spells, though: while page 280 and page 283 combined can be interpreted as "non-subtle AoE spells will be noticed when they're travelling to the point of impact, and even with subtle AoE spells, you can make a test to notice them", I'm not sure if the time between the spell being sent off and the spell hitting the point of detonation is enough to justify a Dodge test.
-
O_o The hell? Ya'll quick to jump behind Crunch when he agrees with you and adds eloquence to your arguments, and quick to jump down his throat when he houserules. I mean, I disagree with the guy about a lot of stuff (mostly for fun, truth be told) but based entirely on how he presents himself I'd put my money on him being a good to great GM. The only areas I can't be sure of is how his work-ethic and characterization are, and I can only infer how he interacts with his players, but I don't know that from anyone I haven't played with. Saying that he isn't "doing his job" as a GM is unduly harsh.
From what I can tell it's pretty much two that just want to argue and one who is just trolling today.
You're going to have to name names and explain yourself here - coming into a topic and saying "two of you are just looking to argue for the sake of arguing, and one of you is trolling" without any explanations as to why you think so, is something I consider trolling.
Not you, definitely. We don't agree on the subject of cyber limbs, and you do seem to get into a bit of a butthead mode at times but I haven't ever seen you go quite into trolling.
-
Not you, definitely. We don't agree on the subject of cyber limbs, and you do seem to get into a bit of a butthead mode at times but I haven't ever seen you go quite into trolling.
That is the most positive thing I remember you ever saying about me - thanks! :)
Speaking of cyberlimbs: Crunch, while I don't necessarily agree with your current houserule on them, I do look forward to 'seeing' it in action: please try to encourage at least one of your players to try out a cyberarm, since a 5/5 human can still have a 9/8 cyberarm with internal shotgun for 86k.
-
Not you, definitely. We don't agree on the subject of cyber limbs, and you do seem to get into a bit of a butthead mode at times but I haven't ever seen you go quite into trolling.
That is the most positive thing I remember you ever saying about me - thanks! :)
Speaking of cyberlimbs: Crunch, while I don't necessarily agree with your current houserule on them, I do look forward to 'seeing' it in action: please try to encourage at least one of your players to try out a cyberarm, since a 5/5 human can still have a 9/8 cyberarm with internal shotgun for 86k.
We'll see if someone decides to roll that way. I typically try to make sure my chargen house rules are laid out before I get final draft characters. I find it makes it less likely for people to take things personally (not that that's a big problem in my group, but I find that politeness always pays). Right now I have a Street Shaman, Gymnast/Free Runner Adept, a former company man Street Sam and a Drone Rigger so I should get to see a fairly broad swath of builds on their feet.
-
Not you, definitely. We don't agree on the subject of cyber limbs, and you do seem to get into a bit of a butthead mode at times but I haven't ever seen you go quite into trolling.
That is the most positive thing I remember you ever saying about me - thanks! :)
Speaking of cyberlimbs: Crunch, while I don't necessarily agree with your current houserule on them, I do look forward to 'seeing' it in action: please try to encourage at least one of your players to try out a cyberarm, since a 5/5 human can still have a 9/8 cyberarm with internal shotgun for 86k.
We'll see if someone decides to roll that way. I typically try to make sure my chargen house rules are laid out before I get final draft characters. I find it makes it less likely for people to take things personally (not that that's a big problem in my group, but I find that politeness always pays). Right now I have a Street Shaman, Gymnast/Free Runner Adept, a former company man Street Sam and a Drone Rigger so I should get to see a fairly broad swath of builds on their feet.
I just think that you should just go simple with your cyber limb house rule. Keep your armor averaging if you want, but for the attributes just add the sentence "You can only customize up to your natural value." It stops the shenanigans, but it doesn't unduly limit as the cyber limb user would still be able to enhance more than other characters can enhance their attributes.
-
I just think that you should just go simple with your cyber limb house rule. Keep your armor averaging if you want, but for the attributes just add the sentence "You can only customize up to your natural value." It stops the shenanigans, but it doesn't unduly limit as the cyber limb user would still be able to enhance more than other characters can enhance their attributes.
Actually that was the original proposal. The point was made, and I think it's fair, that simply applying the Aug max is more consistent with the rest of the augmentation rules and a little more generous to the player. The other problem with simply limiting customization is it still allows a Str 1 character to use a Str 6 cyberlimb unless you seperately invoke the aug max
-
I just think that you should just go simple with your cyber limb house rule. Keep your armor averaging if you want, but for the attributes just add the sentence "You can only customize up to your natural value." It stops the shenanigans, but it doesn't unduly limit as the cyber limb user would still be able to enhance more than other characters can enhance their attributes.
Enhancements only go up to +3, though, and uncustomized cyberlimbs still come at 3/3, so a houserule like that would limit cyberlimbs to +3 if you're at 3+ Agi/Strength, but +4 at 2 and +5 at 1. Of course, his current houserules still allow some min-maxing (customize to racial limit, then use the more expensive enhancements to get to the +4) if you're not softcapped, so I'd personally go with "customization by up to natural attribute value plus one, +4 augmentation limit applies to final attribute value of cyberlimb", and maybe include a "possible to 'upgrade' the customization if your natural attribute increases at any point". This way cyberlimbs are restricted to +4, there's no min-maxing with customization versus enhancements possible, and if you increase your natural attribute, you can 'upgrade' your cyberlimb instead of having to buy a new one.
-
I just think that you should just go simple with your cyber limb house rule. Keep your armor averaging if you want, but for the attributes just add the sentence "You can only customize up to your natural value." It stops the shenanigans, but it doesn't unduly limit as the cyber limb user would still be able to enhance more than other characters can enhance their attributes.
Actually that was the original proposal. The point was made, and I think it's fair, that simply applying the Aug max is more consistent with the rest of the augmentation rules and a little more generous to the player. The other problem with simply limiting customization is it still allows a Str 1 character to use a Str 6 cyberlimb unless you seperately invoke the aug max
Okay, then the sentence "You may only customize a cyber limb up to your current natural attribute value, and at no time may any of the limb's attributes exceed current natural value + 4."
-
Lets say a kid steals an eraser from a teacher. The teacher gets up, addresses the class about how stealing erasers in general is wrong. Was the teacher really talking to the whole class? No. But the person s/he was talking to knows who they are. Same here.
Personally I do customize up to the natural value. It really wasn't a conscious decision, that's just how everyone at my table (including myself) assumed it worked at the time and I've yet to correct anyone. If your Street Sam complains about not getting the full +4 that's possible from muscle, et cetera either let the Suprathyroid stack with the arms or let the STR/AGI Enhancement go up to +4. That's a lot simpler.
-
Okay, then the sentence "You may only customize a cyber limb up to your current natural attribute value, and at no time may any of the limb's attributes exceed current natural value + 4."
That would still allow characters with 1 or 2 in a stat to get their cyberlimbs to +4, while those with more balanced stats would be stuck with +3.
-
Okay, then the sentence "You may only customize a cyber limb up to your current natural attribute value, and at no time may any of the limb's attributes exceed current natural value + 4."
That would still allow characters with 1 or 2 in a stat to get their cyberlimbs to +4, while those with more balanced stats would be stuck with +3.
Would you rather have that or just having everything use the averaging of the natural and limb attributes (incorporating the head into the averaging)? Using the average on everything is a quicker fix after all.
-
Okay, then the sentence "You may only customize a cyber limb up to your current natural attribute value, and at no time may any of the limb's attributes exceed current natural value + 4."
That would still allow characters with 1 or 2 in a stat to get their cyberlimbs to +4, while those with more balanced stats would be stuck with +3.
Would you rather have that or just having everything use the averaging of the natural and limb attributes (incorporating the head into the averaging)? Using the average on everything is a quicker fix after all.
I would rather you cap cyberlimbs at [whatever you can customize them to] + 1, so if you cap them at +4, allow customization to +1; but if you only allow customization to +0, cap cyberlimbs at +3.
-
All in all though, the problem lies in the cyber limbs having their own attributes. It would have been far better for the limb to just have whatever attribute the character had (not including other implants like Muscle Replacement/Toner/Augmentation. This way there would be no confusion and the other purposes for the cyber limbs such as other 'gimmicks' installed and the cyber limb armor would be intact.
-
Oh man, the fact that one of you thanks A4BG for insulting you and the other sees him as a teacher is just... ...well, something.
My arguments were honest critiques to what I perceive as unnecessary changes to the mechanics. Crunch did I troll you?
-
Oh man, the fact that one of you thanks A4BG for insulting you and the other sees him as a teacher is just... ...well, something.
My arguments were honest critiques to what I perceive as unnecessary changes to the mechanics. Crunch did I troll you?
Troll's not actually a word I use unless it's immediately followed be mage, samurai, decker or physical adept.
I personally wouldn't go into someone's house rules thread and tell them they weren't "doing a GM's job" because they wanted to spell out known issues in advance, but I'm a big boy and if I walked off in a huff everytime someone was a little rude I'd not have stuck around here as long as I have.
-
I personally wouldn't go into someone's house rules thread and tell them they weren't "doing a GM's job" because they wanted to spell out known issues in advance, but I'm a big boy and if I walked off in a huff everytime someone was a little rude I'd not have stuck around here as long as I have.
I know I wasn't a model of politeness in my response (I apologize for that, it doesn't justify my rudeness but your "My mind is made up" bit triggered it as you were asking for input on the front end but saying something else on the back), but I didn't troll post with the sole purpose of antagonizing you or baiting you into an argument for the sake of argument did I?
-
I personally wouldn't go into someone's house rules thread and tell them they weren't "doing a GM's job" because they wanted to spell out known issues in advance, but I'm a big boy and if I walked off in a huff everytime someone was a little rude I'd not have stuck around here as long as I have.
I know I wasn't a model of politeness in my response (I apologize for that, it doesn't justify my rudeness but your "My mind is made up" bit triggered it as you were asking for input on the front end but saying something else on the back), but I didn't troll you did I?
Like I said Troll is not a word I use. There was definitely a more aggressive response to this thread than I expected and it put me on my back feet for awhile.
I am looking for input, notably I've changed my specific solution for cyberarms a few times in response to suggestions. Thanks for making them.
-
There was definitely a more aggressive response to this thread than I expected and it put me on my back feet for awhile.
Again, I am sorry for that. You and I disagree over some things (sometimes vehemently so *cough*Augmented Adepts*cough*), but you are not unreasonable and I can't think of a time when I've ever seen you openly antagonistic or even butt-hurt, which is admirable and a lot more than I can say for some people here who I've seen in both of those states time and time again. They of course are not going to be mentioned by name, but as has been said, that's okay because they know who they are.
I am looking for input...
I noted that, and I would hope you noted that upon receiving your reasoning for your rules and seeing the clarification of the most contentious, I backed down and indeed said they were reasonable.
-
Whether they do is conditional, and up to the GM. Spirit's are more likely to use Edge in cases of oversummoning or if they are summoned to an area that would trigger an allergy (summoning a fire spirit into an area that's being doused by fire sprinklers).
This is exactly how I've been handling it. If the spirit's force is over the magician's magic rating it will automatically use edge unless two conditions are met:
1. The summoner has not abused spirits, has generally treated them well.
2. The situation is dire enough to warrant asking for help from the big dogs. If the spirit feels it is being summoned for something beneath it's level, it will edge and will hold a grudge if summoned successfully in spite of it.