Shadowrun
Catalyst Game Labs => Errata => Topic started by: Patrick Goodman on <02-08-14/2110:59>
-
Go check it out. (http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2014/02/shadowrun-fifth-edition-errata-now-available/)
-
Little disappointed that the type for Submersion wasn't fixed :(
Edit: I'm glad to have these, and don't want to seem ungrateful! But... yeah
-
Recoil wasn't really cleared up at all.
I mean, since firing a pistol only uses one of your Simple Actions, as long as you do something else, anything else, does that reset recoil? Does that also apply to Burst Fire? I can see recoil resetting on pistols unless you use a Complex Action to fire SA Burst, but what about BF weapons? You can fire a burst every Action Phase with no more recoil penalties? Does not work for me...
Unless I'm reading that wrong...
-
Thanks for the heads-up Patrick...much appreciated!
-
Recoil seems pretty cleared up to me: if you take a Simple Action that isn't shooting, or a Complex Action that isn't shooting, your recoil resets.
-
dwarf and trolls don't have a added gear cost to them?
-
They haven't for a long time. That was cleared up in the Hot Patch a few weeks after launch, I believe.
I'm also of the opinion that recoil was, indeed, clarified. The main question was whether you had to go an entire pass without firing or not. Now we know.
I'm pretty ecstatic that 1.5 editions later, Combat Sense becomes a Passive Detection spell.
You would think they would have fixed the obvious submersion cost problem, unless they really do intend for it to cost like 30 karma or whatever.
-
Yeah, the Recoil doesn't help. Each Phase, you can take a Simple Action other than shooting, along with your Simple Action to shoot... So, essentially, an Ingram Smartgun only ever suffers 3 points of Recoil, which is always offset by the 2 RC, and 1 minimum from Strength, and 1 free when you start shooting.
Simple Action: Fire, Simple Action: Take Aim.. well, there's my simple action of not firing, so recoil resets.. since, each Action Phase, you can only attack once, each phase, you can aim, fire, and your aim action resets recoil?
Yeah, I think this goes against what Recoil is supposed to represent.
-
Ares Alpha: 2 RC, +3 from owner with 4 Strength, +1 from Shockpad and bam, easily available 6-round FA burst every IP, no strings attached.
-
I do believe the issue people have here is not that they don't understand the clarified Recoil rules, it's that they don't like them.
-
Ares Alpha: 2 RC, +3 from owner with 4 Strength, +1 from Shockpad and bam, easily available 6-round FA burst every IP, no strings attached.
Strength 4 would only add 2 points, but yea. Seems its back to the days of 6 round bursts every pass. Making Long Burst a simple action is a mistake now.
-
Ares Alpha: 2 RC, +3 from owner with 4 Strength, +1 from Shockpad and bam, easily available 6-round FA burst every IP, no strings attached.
Strength 4 would only add 2 points, but yea. Seems its back to the days of 6 round bursts every pass. Making Long Burst a simple action is a mistake now.
He's including the one free point that everyone gets when they start firing. I agree with the Long Burst assessment.
-
I do believe the issue people have here is not that they don't understand the clarified Recoil rules, it's that they don't like them.
Not really. Players (and some GMs) will love this rule, mostly because they can now ignore it.
It seems strange that Catalyst went to all the trouble to add a rule (Progressive Recoil) just to neuter it with a single phrase change in errata. There is no Progressive Recoil at all now, unless you're shooting 6 rounds on BF mode or 10 rounds FA (the stuff that takes a Complex Action). Everything else is either a Simple Action (which leaves you a Simple Action to do something else) or Suppressive Fire (which ignores recoil anyway).
My main pain is the nerfing of pure Adepts, who can't have the Assensing skill (so the Astral Perception power is useless) or the Arcana skill (so they can't initiate). (In the Missions campaign, these skills technically have to be removed/refunded for Adepts because there's no grandfathering.) Also, the implicit confirmation that it takes 30 x grade Karma for a technomancer to submerge. (Gee, I wonder why there are so few Matrix characters in the Missions campaign...)
-
Load Magazine + Fire SA Shot + Fire SA Burst next pass = Progressive Recoil. It pretty much matches up with the SA example listed in the book.
As far as the magic thing, I do think they need additional errata identifying "magic-specific skills" as "Magic-Attribute linked skills" for clarity. If you refer (as the book instructs you) to the Magical Skills section in the Magic chapter, it explicitly lists only the skills in the Conjuring, Enchanting, and Sorcery skill groups as magical skills.
-
I do believe the issue people have here is not that they don't understand the clarified Recoil rules, it's that they don't like them.
Not really. Players (and some GMs) will love this rule, mostly because they can now ignore it.
"A Complex Action is required for shooting weapons mounted on a vehicle in any firing mode" Page 183...
So.. Drones and vehicle can't ignore it at all.. because, you know... that makes sense somehow, I guess
-
I do believe the issue people have here is not that they don't understand the clarified Recoil rules, it's that they don't like them.
Not really. Players (and some GMs) will love this rule, mostly because they can now ignore it.
"A Complex Action is required for shooting weapons mounted on a vehicle in any firing mode" Page 183...
So.. Drones and vehicle can't ignore it at all.. because, you know... that makes sense somehow, I guess
Except for that that section is about people using Gunnery. Page 270 mentions that the rules for drone combat are the same as those for regular flesh-and-blood characters, which can be taken as that they have simple actions available for firing themselves. So no, it's not automatically overruled.
-
Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata? There seems to be so many more issues including errors in the archetypes, how dual wielding works against a single target, and what the -2 dice is for when defending against AOEs. I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.
-
I know there's work on fully legal archetypes, so that will be out some day. I do hope we'll get a proper Multiple Attacks section in the future, and the AoE line not being removed is indeed rather confusing.
-
Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata?...I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.
No:
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=14801.msg268009#msg268009
-
Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata?...I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.
No:
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=14801.msg268009#msg268009
You know, while I can see that, I know someone (probably on dumpshock) is going to come along and call BS on what Hardy said. I get there is a lot of other stuff to be done, but there are some very obvious things that are (hopefully) incorrect and noted at the onset that this errata simply did not address. Unless we're to understand that the issue of submersion costing 30+ karma was examined but not considered critical enough to be included in the first draft of the errata (even though it would literally require a 45 degree turn of a signle character to correct).
-
Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata? There seems to be so many more issues including errors in the archetypes, how dual wielding works against a single target, and what the -2 dice is for when defending against AOEs. I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.
I was a bit... and this comment:
That all happens while the Beginner Box Set, Stolen Souls, Splintered State, Gun H(e)aven 3, Run & Gun, Coyotes, Runners Toolkit: Alphaware, Shadowrun: Crossfire, Missions, Street Grimoire (upcoming magic core rulebook), and more are being worked on.
Made me think that perhaps they are valuing quantity too much and it's letting quality slide...
-
Given how people complain there's not already 2 more source books out, they really can't win this can they?
-
Given how people complain there's not already 2 more source books out, they really can't win this can they?
You can't please greeks and trojans :P
-
You know, while I can see that, I know someone (probably on dumpshock) is going to come along and call BS on what Hardy said.
Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.
Unless we're to understand that the issue of submersion costing 30+ karma was examined but not considered critical enough to be included in the first draft of the errata (even though it would literally require a 45 degree turn of a signle character to correct).
In this day and age, games are more alive than they were even ten years ago. The instant feedback from fans is awesome in picking up things that get missed. If you want to see an example of this, ask a BattleTech player about artillery when Tactical Operations was first published. Fans felt they were horrible, that the odds of dropping a shell on your own launchers was too high. Granted you had to essentially put your guns on the front line for the scenario to develop, but it was enough that a lot of fans complained. That they did so in a polite manner, including reasoning and suggestions for changes, was (IMO) the biggest reason for the change to what artillery became. I fully expect more changes to come later, as resources free up to look at complaints from the core books. My guess (and this truly is a guess AJCarrington ;)) is we'll see errata come out as they relate to upcoming core books. Why not spend the time going over changes to core rules when you're working on expanding those rules?
-
Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.
Sorry, I don't really buy that and I really don't think you have to understand the gaming industry to be able to formulate an opinion. There are several outstanding items that are in a similar vein to what was offered in this errata. Examples include the TM Submersion karma cost and the Binding Test rules that mention the Summoning skill rather than the Binding skill. It really is bewildering to me why these wouldn't have been included in this initial errata document. They are clearly copy/paste and/or typo errors that DO effect the way the game is played. I can look past not including changing the "Auctioneer Business Clothes" in the Index to "Actioneer" but these items do change the way the game is played if one wants to play by RAW. Are they easy to house rule? Yeah! But they would be just as easy to fix in an errata document. The only explanation I can really think of is that CGL doesn't have a very well organized method for dealing with errata and they simply missed including it. That's fine, people are human and I can hope that it would get included in the next round of errata documents. The problem is if it takes another 6 months before we get the next set, particularly given the lack of communication in general from TPTB over here. It would take six words to fix the TM submersion deal: "It should be an addition sign."
Why not spend the time going over changes to core rules when you're working on expanding those rules?
Because it impacts people's games now?
-
The thing is, the errata is "canon" but ultimately everything in every book is subject to the whims of the GM. If the GM doesn't like the change to... say, progressive recoil... then the GM is free to change things. It is nice to have errata, because it's presumably been playtested and works. But to make that presumption still requires a degree of understanding that writing errata isn't just a matter of making a list and writing it up. People can't have their cake and eat it too. Which sucks, because... well, it's cake!
So the errata doesn't impact people's games so heavily as it seems. If a table hates the errata they can just throw it out. Or throw out pieces of it. Or add pieces to it. It's irrelevant in the short term. The only part that the errata really heavily impacts are the Missions campaigns.
-
Sorry, I don't really buy that and I really don't think you have to understand the gaming industry to be able to formulate an opinion.
An informed opinion, on the other hand...
-
Sorry, I don't really buy that and I really don't think you have to understand the gaming industry to be able to formulate an opinion.
An informed opinion, on the other hand...
You know, I originally even had "informed" in there, but decided you don't even need an "informed" opinion to wonder about and question the obvious scattershot nature of this errata document. I'm extremely happy we have something, I'm less excited by the fact that I don't have high hopes that we're going to be seeing even semi-regular updates to it due to the publishing schedule. But keep on keeping on, I guess.
-
I am a little curious over where the line between "typo" and "errata change" is, to be honest. But it's almost certainly easier for them to fit further errata into the schedule if they plan on it from far enough out - I'm pretty sure part of the problem is the structure of just how freelancer time gets distributed and so on; when everything is contract based with set deadlines, you don't have a lot of agility to reorient towards a change in plans.
-
You know, while I can see that, I know someone (probably on dumpshock) is going to come along and call BS on what Hardy said.
Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.
I'd love to know what's going on behind the scenes...except anyone who can tell us is under an NDA. Oh, and Hardy made an appearance on this forum today, so we can expect another post from him in 2018 or so. So many white knights on this forum defend everything, good or bad, that Catalyst release.
-
Many of us "white knights" have been playing Shadow run long enough to have seen it change hands no less than four times in three editions. The licensing issues are all kinds of complicated. I think that we just don't tend to bash in the heads of those we support. We'd rather encourage them to do better, because we know that Catalyst is up against a lot of walls. Some of these walls may seem self-imposed, but many of them are definitely not.
-
Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.
Sorry, I don't really buy that...
Which part?
That I don't care somebody is going to call BS on Jason?
People don't know what's going on behind the curtain?
People will take fragments of information, fill in the blanks themselves, guess wrong but not know it, and post their opinion online?
That I get a chuckle from the group above?
The only explanation I can really think of is that CGL doesn't have a very well organized method for dealing with errata and they simply missed including it. That's fine, people are human and I can hope that it would get included in the next round of errata documents. The problem is if it takes another 6 months before we get the next set, particularly given the lack of communication in general from TPTB over here. It would take six words to fix the TM submersion deal: "It should be an addition sign."
BattleTech does a great job with tracking errata. There's no good reason Shadowrun can't take what BattleTech is doing and adapt it.
Let me take a moment to remind people about how CGL rolls errata into book PDFs: due to the books needing to go through Layout again, don't expect to see a book's PDF get updated until a book is going out for reprint. Expect to see smaller documents like the one released.
-
Which part?
That I don't care somebody is going to call BS on Jason?
That I get a chuckle from the group above?
Oh, I can buy all of that, the tone is pretty clear that you don't seem to care that people are complaing, valid or not. The part that you excised is really what I was talking about. You don't have to have detailed industry knowledge to wonder why errata was released that didn't include certain issues that were identified from the get go and would only require simple corrections. Looking at the official errata thread on this forum, you can pretty much place checkmarks against a lot of the things mentioned on the first 5 pages or so that do appear in the errata document (which is great). But there are clear voids and a customer has a right to question that and wonder. Maybe submersion is supposed to cost 30 karma. The response in the errata thread was that it was incorrect and would be included in the errata. Maybe that changed between then and now. We don't know because...
People don't know what's going on behind the curtain?
People will take fragments of information, fill in the blanks themselves, guess wrong but not know it, and post their opinion online?
Yup, it's a communication issue. So who's fault is that?
BattleTech does a great job with tracking errata. There's no good reason Shadowrun can't take what BattleTech is doing and adapt it.
Awesome, I hope they do if they aren't already. I would assume they aren't based on easily correctable errata not being included in the document.
Let me take a moment to remind people about how CGL rolls errata into book PDFs: due to the books needing to go through Layout again, don't expect to see a book's PDF get updated until a book is going out for reprint. Expect to see smaller documents like the one released.
That's fine. Personally, I don't care about a well formatted document. I just want rules corrections. D&D 3.X, probably one of the most successful gaming franchises ever, released errata and FAQ documents that were basically PDFs of Word documents. Sure, people like nicely formatted stuff, but I don't see any reason why a rough draft of offical errata can't be released as a PDF of a Word document. It seems to be good enough for Missions.
I'm looking forward to the next set of errata.
-
Yup, it's a communication issue. So who's fault is that?
In general, the people jumping to conclusions and the people providing extremely-poorly phrased text to the point that even their intent is unclear.
First of all, you can't communicate everything. Second, even when something is communicated well, there will still be people jumping to conclusions. So responsibility does not automatically lie with the one providing the intel.
Here's something interesting: When SRO talked about item codes, I got worried and expressed my concern, stating I was hoping for the best. Later primetide came in and alleviated my concerns. If someone had started raging and throwing a hissfit without trying to confirm back then, I could not have respected him in any way.
-
And I agree with that Michael, but I feel that most issues, particularly on this board, have been initially addressed in collegial ways. Not every complaint is from someone who is raging over CGL having the SR license. I would guess that most are from the average player who doesn't know nor care about CGL's supposed antics that enrages certain sectors of the fan base.
Honestly, my main issue has been the relative silence. It was nice when Aaron was around and answering questions/giving opinions in the Rules Clarification/FAQ thread. I felt like we were being engaged. That came to a screeching halt around October(?) and we've pretty much been left to drift ever since. It's hard to not get frustrated at that point. I think a lot of people would have appreciated a head's up that the errata document was in bound, at least I know I would have.
-
Honestly, my main issue has been the relative silence. It was nice when Aaron was around and answering questions/giving opinions in the Rules Clarification/FAQ thread. I felt like we were being engaged. That came to a screeching halt around October(?) and we've pretty much been left to drift ever since. It's hard to not get frustrated at that point. I think a lot of people would have appreciated a head's up that the errata document was in bound, at least I know I would have.
Knowing that the errata document was inbound would be nice, but having Aaron back answering a question now and then would be awesome.
-
And I agree with that Michael, but I feel that most issues, particularly on this board, have been initially addressed in collegial ways.
Correct, around here is pretty nice. I'd tell you my nickname for DumpShock but that would mean a third official warning and thus a temp ban.
-
I'm sure we'd rather you keep it to yourself regardless.
-
I'm sure you personally would. :) I would not dare speak for others.
-
Wait, you are lumping a group together in one insulting (or I'm assuming insulting as you are worried about a ban), but I'm not allowed to say that nobody wants to know your pet name for another forum? Got it.
-
That is not a correct representation of my words. However, given the nature of your post, I will PM you the detailed response to your hostile words.
-
Thanks for setting me straight on how I should post or how not to read an insult incorrectly.
-
Watch out bigity, you might get a strongly worded PM and end up on Michael's ignore list with me!
I do believe the lack of communication from Catalyst is the biggest issue. I understand NDAs, but for a product that is already released like the SR5 core rules it would be great if SOMEONE from Catalyst with an official word would grace us with their divine presence to answer questions/clear up misunderstandings. The fact that we've basically had radio silence from anyone with official say-so this entire edition is frustrating beyond words.
-
Oh, I can buy all of that, the tone is pretty clear that you don't seem to care that people are complaing, valid or not.
I do care that people have complaints. Feedback from the fans is how product gets improved.
The part that you excised is really what I was talking about. You don't have to have detailed industry knowledge to wonder why errata was released that didn't include certain issues that were identified from the get go and would only require simple corrections.
As Jason said, very little is as simple as it seems. If a change is made, it has to be checked against all relevant aspects of the game. The change has to be playtested, lest a change break something else.
Looking at the official errata thread on this forum, you can pretty much place checkmarks against a lot of the things mentioned on the first 5 pages or so that do appear in the errata document (which is great). But there are clear voids and a customer has a right to question that and wonder.
Customers do have the right, and they do have the responsiblity, to question things. At the same time the customers do have to understand that the answers may take longer than they want.
Maybe submersion is supposed to cost 30 karma. The response in the errata thread was that it was incorrect and would be included in the errata. Maybe that changed between then and now. We don't know because...
People don't know what's going on behind the curtain?
People will take fragments of information, fill in the blanks themselves, guess wrong but not know it, and post their opinion online?
Yup, it's a communication issue. So who's fault is that?
At the end of the day? The person who posted. Sorry, but I'm not going to let somebody pass responsiblity for their actions onto another.
BattleTech does a great job with tracking errata. There's no good reason Shadowrun can't take what BattleTech is doing and adapt it.
Awesome, I hope they do if they aren't already. I would assume they aren't based on easily correctable errata not being included in the document.
Take a look for yourself: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/
Rules questions get broken down into their core rule book, with the errata board for actual errata.
That's fine. Personally, I don't care about a well formatted document. I just want rules corrections. D&D 3.X, probably one of the most successful gaming franchises ever, released errata and FAQ documents that were basically PDFs of Word documents. Sure, people like nicely formatted stuff, but I don't see any reason why a rough draft of offical errata can't be released as a PDF of a Word document. It seems to be good enough for Missions.
We're going to disagree here. Outside of previews rough drafts shouldn't be released. Anything that is intended to be in the hands of the players should go through layout. Even if it's as simple as the layout used in the errata document. The Missions releases are something I don't agree with, for the reason indicated.
-
As Jason said, very little is as simple as it seems. If a change is made, it has to be checked against all relevant aspects of the game. The change has to be playtested, lest a change break something else.
The eratta made Single Shot mostly pointless. Depending on your interpretation, it made it impossible for Adepts to Initiate, and also impossible for Adepts to learn Assensing, even if they have Astral Perception. These things were not playtested; you do not compile a document of error fixes that takes "six months" to make and break new stuff in the process that didn't need broken.
Peter, do you work for Catalyst? You keep defending them even when they make mistakes.
-
The Magical Skills thing was my fault, really. I didn't write that up as clearly as I might have, and I apologize for that. It's been brought up to the Powers That Be for Errata 1.1.
-
Thanks for the effort, Patrick!
Incidentally, "magic-specific skills" as limited in that paragraph are supposed to be the Magical Skills as described in the Magic Chapter (Conjuring, Enchanting, & Sorcery Skill Group skills), right?
-
That was my intent; it didn't seem right for adepts to be buying Sorcery, so I tried to clean it up and managed to bollix things up even worse. Which was most certainly not the intent.
-
Thank you sir!
...and is submersion supposed to be so expensive?
-
...and is submersion supposed to be so expensive?
Not to my knowledge, but it was something that was brought up after my initial submission all those moons ago. I know it got a fair amount of discussion somewhere along the line, however, and I'm thinking it's going to be addressed in the next go-round. I could be wrong, however; please don't hold me to that.
-
Has Catalyst made communication mistakes? Yes. Jason Hardy admitted to such and you guys are still raking him over the coals about it.
Could Catalyst have gotten more into the errata? Maybe. Fact is, we really don't know what was going on behind the scenes. As Jason Hardy explained, there is a long process, limited staff, and multiple projects that require the staff. What we all need to remember is that this is only one product of ...5? 6? That Catalyst is working on at the moment.
Did Catalyst bite off more than they can chew? Perhaps - I'm not ready to make a judgement call there yet. But it sure seems like they might have gotten in over their heads a little bit.
Do we need to resort to petty teasing and tantrum-throwing? Not at all. We can all be adults about this, and accept that there are things outside of our control that happen. If there is a single company in the world that releases everything on time, as scheduled a year in advance, and with no problems I have yet to see them. No one can do that, which lends credence to the argument that Catalyst may have bitten off more than they can chew. But what's done is done.
The best thing that we can do is try to help the developers in any way that we can. Berating them isn't going to do that. Eventually it'll get to the point where the developers simply lose their passion for making this game, and then we're all SOL. So everyone just chill out, stop being childish, and get over your egos.
Thank you for the feedback, Patrick.
-
...and is submersion supposed to be so expensive?
Not to my knowledge, but it was something that was brought up after my initial submission all those moons ago. I know it got a fair amount of discussion somewhere along the line, however, and I'm thinking it's going to be addressed in the next go-round. I could be wrong, however; please don't hold me to that.
Thank you Jack of All Trades & Patrick :)
I eagerly await that answer as karma keeps burning a hole in my pocket before I can save to 30
-
Quick FYI for those who acquired this via DTRPG, there was an update released on Feb 09, though not seeing any material changes (formatting/layout only?).
-
Quick FYI for those who acquired this via DTRPG, there was an update released on Feb 09, though not seeing any material changes (formatting/layout only?).
The only difference I noticed was they added some play testers
-
Huh, DTRPG didn't send me a notification. (They have for other items.) I'll have to check why, lest I miss the core rulebook update when that hits.
-
Peter, do you work for Catalyst? You keep defending them even when they make mistakes.
I have a relationship with Catalyst, yes.
-
Huh, DTRPG didn't send me a notification. (They have for other items.) I'll have to check why, lest I miss the core rulebook update when that hits.
If you go on DTRPG and look at your library for your account next to any download that has since had an update it should say (updated) and the date updated so you have an idea which update it is.
I didn't get a specfic message either, but it is nice to go in the library and see at a glance which items I have purchased that have been updated this way and when.
-
Any word on when the errata will be updated?
-
I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything closer than October.. and it's not going to be announced, someday it will just be there.
-
They might get another update prior to Origins for the con season. If not then it probably won't happen till fall.