Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: KraakenDazs on <02-05-16/2119:18>
-
Afternoon gents,
I'm thinking of starting up a new SR campaign. Always loved the universe, ime DMed quite a bit of it, mostly SR2 and SR4, and an SR5 attempt in the early days that proved horribly frustrating rules-wise.
What are everyone's current thoughts? This time around, i'm almost considering returning to SR4, and instead homebrewing-in Decks (because decks. are. awesome) instead of trying to ''fix'' those harrassing SR 5 issues. (Errattas, indexes..)
What's the current SR 5 status. I know official errattas are making themselves scarce, and i'd love to support SR5 if i could get the frustration to a manageable level.
1- What are the current aids i might be able to find around here? Hotfixes, patches, erratas, have any been combined efficiently? I know for a while Michael Chandra (i think) had a signature link to a bunch of small fixes. For those who're playing SR5 more dilligently than i am..do they work? Are they enough?
2-Any other similar assistance tool i might be able to find somewhere? a Chummer for 5th? I know some digging around here would uncover marvels, but i am hoping there's a master-list somewhere, or maybe we can try to build one through this post to encourage it.
3-What's currently missing? I know rigger 5 came out, im hearing much praise. I'll likely buy it and encourage Catalyst for a good product. But if a lot of other things are still broken, it's hardly worth it. So, what are the current deal-breakers? The overpowered-makes-no-sense-we-*need*-an-erratta-problems.
Appreciating any help! :)
-
Technomancers are a joke right now; they have one viable build right now, and even then a decer is still better for the matrix. They are working on a technomancer supplement, but until that comes out any player you have that wants to play one should wait. As for rules and errata, it's been a long time since we've had errata, and there are a lot of things that desperately need it. Check out the errata threads, in the errata section of the forums, for a more in-depth veiw of that.
-
I prefer SR5 to SR4 for what I consider to be tighter, less abusable matrix rules and the additions of Limits, which make it more difficult, if only by a little, for a savvy player to absolutely shatter the system.
If you want to make Technomancers a little beefier, these are the house rules I am about to start testing, copied and pasted from my house rules documents.
A technomancer's matrix attributes are not derived from their mental attributes. Instead, a newly created technomancer gets a number of points to distribute among these attributes equal to their Resonance x3 +3. No attribute can ever be higher than their mental limit. This limit is ignored by the attribute-enhancing submersion abilities. Whenever their Resonance attribute increases, they gain 3 more points to distribute.
A technomancer is capable of learning special complex forms that essentially duplicate the effects of programs, but they cannot utilize as many as a decker. They can learn a maximum number of these programs equal to half their Resonance (rounded up), and cannot learn any of the attribute-enhancing programs or the configurator program. These programs require no check to run, and do not need to be sustained. Note that these programs are generally not as powerful as actual complex forms, so learning them is a less efficient use of resources for the technomancer, but sometimes a specific program may be crucial to a build or playstyle, and this allows a player to acquire that program without having to go through submersion.
As with magicians and spirits, technomancers must learn to compile each type of sprite individual, using up one of their Complex Form slots at character creation, or spending a like amount of karma.
Finally, the skinlink echo is part of the technomancer's default kit. Any technomancer, without having to submerge, can create a direct link with an electronic object by touching it with their fingertips or the palms of their hands.
-
TMs got thrown in a cell with Bubba the Love Troll and sandpaper for lube this edition. There's just no other way to say it. They went from being the 'Swiss Army knives of the Matrix', versatile characters who could be situationally more powerful than a decker or rigger (but at a price) with the balance that they were generally not much help in the real world, while hackers and riggers were less versatile, but more powerful overall and had greater endurance and reliability. TMs were tactical masters, while deckers and riggers were strategic masters.
In 5E, that's all gone. Not only did the rigging part of TMs get ripped out and drekked on to the point where you have to get enough karma to submerge to even think about rigging, but when talking about hacking TMs are less versatile, and far less powerful, than hackers. And they still are fairly useless in the real world. Even worse, they can't be part of a PAN, so they can't even secure their OWN gear, much less the rest of the party's! Basically, if a player wants to be a TM, hand them a gimp mask and a leather collar to put on first.
Otherwise, the recent books and supplements have risen conditions to 'ok'. 5E is heavy on the 2e/3e nostalgia, and different archetypes are effectively classes that you can't really avoid building into because of abhorently expensive gear/ware and the priority system. It does make chargen quicker, but at the expense of 'streamlining' (read: stripping out almost all chances for customization). They've butchered the hell out of weapon mods, as well.
-
Damn, liked those weapons mods. i guess those might still be houserule-able but that saddens me a bit, i always try to keep houseruling to a minimum.
How about the usability of the rules? Are there any still "Broken" rules that are game-breakers (Like light-speed cars, or grenade modifiers for trying to dodge a grenade but no rule from it-- i remember that one being fixed, but using it as an example.).
Have there been any player-made table of contents for those 2-3 core books that were good but suffered from such god-awful editing?
-
Uh...it takes a bit of a karma sink, but Technomancers are fraggin' broken if you know how to play them. They are just fine. And so far SR5 is hands down the best and tightest edition of Shadowrun rules wise yet.
-
Cash, when it takes 2-3 levels of submersion on top of other things to make them just fine, you've lost the plot. You're talking around 30 karma, which is at least 5-6 runs that they aren't doing anything but trying to catch up to a decker or rigger.
-
Mirikon -
Not arguing. I will posit another question though:What do deckers get for 30 karma after character creation? Most deckers leave character generation pretty solid in their skills. Maybe they can raise an attribute, Pick up some more specializations, maybe convert karma to nuyen if that's part of their game to get some more 'ware. Anything else that makes them better deckers? They aren't buying new decks anytime soon 30 karma in.
While there are certainly lots of things broken and unfinished about technomancers, I think some of the potential fun of technomancers is their growth potential. It is a mechanically forced growth, but technomancer development can have a fun arc. Unlike other archetypes in Shadowrun where optimized characters "grow" very slowly after character generation, technomancers growth rate is faster and can be dramatic.
Hopefully the supplement will make technomancers feel more viable and fleshed out.
-
IS there a techno supplement in the works/soon to be released?
Anything else "Big" coming up, or we're pretty much at the end of the road, "Core-wise" (Run Faster, Street Grimoire, Rigger 5, Chrome Flesh, Data Trails...) ?
I apologize, im guessing most of the info is out there, probably not too far on these boards too, and usually im not taken aback by doing some legwork myself, but i feel every book has 20 pages of opinions and another 17 of erratas to skim through. and that has me a bit overwhelmed :P
-
@KraakenDazs
I'M GMing a SR2055 Round with a mix of SR4A and 5 Rules.(next Week we'll start with the Universal Brotherhood and Queen Euphoria and by the Year 2017 we'll be playin Renraku Arcology Shutdown)
Maybe you give it a thought too ? ;)
>>What's the current SR 5 status
I'm quite happy playing with the German material from Pegasus Games
>> IS there a techno supplement in the works/soon to be released?
there is a TM PDF in the Work but due to....let's say Internal affairs
it may take quite some time (estimatedly a Year or so) until CGL releases it
With a Sunday Morning's Dance
Medicineman
-
IS there a techno supplement in the works/soon to be released?
There is a technomancer supplement in the works, but due to some conflicts with scheduling with the first writer(s?) it probably will not be soon.
-
I will posit another question though:What do deckers get for 30 karma after character creation?
They can use that 30 karma to increase either their matrix skills, pick up specializations, and/or use that karma to help them become even more viable in meatspace, which is an area technomancers hurt in. Also with the ability to convert some of each runs karma into cash, they can afford new cyberware upgrades, get that new deck quicker, or perhaps branch out and pick up more equipment/cyberware for a secondary role (combat, rigger, etc.).
-
5 has a better matrix system than 4 and characters don't leave chargen with basically nothing left to get to be top of their field, unlike 4th.
The writing consistency and editing quality leaves a lot to be desired though, and it seems like whoever is in charge of the line has abandoned the idea of putting out official, regular errata for the myriad of known problems.
-
Mirikon -
Not arguing. I will posit another question though:What do deckers get for 30 karma after character creation? Most deckers leave character generation pretty solid in their skills. Maybe they can raise an attribute, Pick up some more specializations, maybe convert karma to nuyen if that's part of their game to get some more 'ware. Anything else that makes them better deckers? They aren't buying new decks anytime soon 30 karma in.
Buying? no. Stealing? Sure. And yeah, upping their skills at that point is going to be a slow process, but while a TM has to spend everything to get on par with a 0 karma decker, a decker with 30 karma can boost his skills, boost his attributes, or get things that make him more dangerous outside of decking, making him less of a one trick pony, and able to better help the team overall. Oh, and all that time he is still able to protect his gear, and that of his team, which a TM at 300 karma still can't do.
-
Cash, when it takes 2-3 levels of submersion on top of other things to make them just fine, you've lost the plot. You're talking around 30 karma, which is at least 5-6 runs that they aren't doing anything but trying to catch up to a decker or rigger.
I'll have to disagree. Not because you're wrong, because I think it's subjective. In my experience, I tend to play in longer home games so we get plenty of karma. If it were in missions play, it may be disadvantageous to play a character that requires a higher karma investment to become palatable to your standard of play.
-
Can't a technomancer with a Transys Avalon or any other high device rating commlink protect more team gear than most deckers (as most starting decks are device rating 2 or 3, and only DR x 3 devices can be slaved)? And still defends with the devices or the master's stats/ratings? A Transys Avalon has a Firewall of 6 and Technomancers are usually pretty solid in the Willpower and Intuition department (master stats used for almost all dice pools in defending against matrix incursions on devices). Am I missing something?
Forming a PAN only requires the ownership of a commlink or deck. I guess a living persona can't be a master of a PAN, but I don't think that's so terrible. High device rating commlinks with high Firewall are in everyone's grasp, an nearly everyone's budget if they want one. An Intuition Mage can do a solid job taking care of a PAN too.
-
I personally like most of the streamlining of 5th over previous editions. I do wish Catalyst hadn't quite done away with so many of the customization options from previous editions, but those are easily house ruled.
And I think that is the crux of 5th so far; you have to be willing to make table calls and/or house rule things, a lot. Some parts of the rules just don't make much sense, subjectively speaking, but with a little bit of effort the rules are an effective enough framework to build on.
Except for Technomancers, in my opinion; I have no idea what Catalyst was trying to accomplish when they wrote the TM sections, but I just cut them out of the game entirely as Player Characters. I did this in part because I set the game in 2070 so I could use a bunch of the 4th Edition material, but also because I feel the rules would require too much work to be at all feasible.
-
The good: I love the setting and the fluff is helpful in building campaigns and giving back story and setting info.
The bad: The rules are horribly written & terribly edited. Some rules just flat out don't work and make no sense. All of this means you will have to spend countless hours on these forums with your fellow forum members trying to divine what the author's intent was and attempting to make sense of what the rules could/ should/ might be.
TL:DR Catalyst has a horrific editing / line management track record with 5e and seems to have fallen and can't get up (no errata after over a year, continuing poor editing and line management as new books are pushed out with little improvement in quality).
> Rigging is totally broken and Rigger 5.0 conveniently ignored many of the problems/ lack of clarity in rigging rules
> The matrix is confusing and poorly thought out and barely works.
> Magic has become so powerful that there is little or no incentive / reason to run a mundane any more when a similarly focussed awakened character can do it better (5e is called "magicrun" but many people).
> Technomancers are useless unless played as a pet class.
I could go on but those are the highlights.
-
Magic was stronger in 4th. :P
"The matrix doesn't make sense" doesn't really matter to me. The rules work ok. They're more intuitive and less clunky than 4th. I don't care about verisimilitude near as much as playability. But that's me.
-
I like Shadowrun a lot
but the 5th edition feel like a drop in quality to me. The majority of the books I bought feel totaly useless, especially DataTrail. The idea of Host are fun, easy to use for a DM ... but feel totaly unlogical, I mean most Host give you an acces for free (like a stuffer shack or police precinct) so a nobody with a cyberdeck could grab in 2 dice throw the pay data they want, this feel really stupid.
In the 4th they try to bring the Hacker able in combat and a good player could easilly do something funny to an ennemi's weapon ... now it feel like bricking is the only option
I don't know, I love Shadowrun but the 5th leave me with an unfunny after taste
-
Bricking is actually the worst option for deckers in combat (if you don't go into combat with existing marks). It's just too slow and unreliable.
-
I know but the Core Book put it in way that it seems the only logical choice, maybe it's juste me ...
many of you are talking about the drop in usefulness of the Technomancer, I'm at my first game and one of my player is playing a Technomancer. I don'y see where is the problem with them ... maybe because I haven't a Decker player
-
I know but the Core Book put it in way that it seems the only logical choice, maybe it's juste me ...
The book can say whatever it wants. It's wrong. It's not feasible in the action economy and provides very little benefit for the effort.
many of you are talking about the drop in usefulness of the Technomancer, I'm at my first game and one of my player is playing a Technomancer. I don'y see where is the problem with them ... maybe because I haven't a Decker player
Their hacking limits are tied to Attributes, not gear, which makes them pretty MAD. They have to use CFs, not programs, to hack, which can be fairly limiting and not-straightforward. The best thing they can do with the core is be a pet class with sprites - and be effective, I'll say, but that's not everybody's cup of tea.
-
Can't a technomancer with a Transys Avalon or any other high device rating commlink protect more team gear than most deckers (as most starting decks are device rating 2 or 3, and only DR x 3 devices can be slaved)? And still defends with the devices or the master's stats/ratings? A Transys Avalon has a Firewall of 6 and Technomancers are usually pretty solid in the Willpower and Intuition department (master stats used for almost all dice pools in defending against matrix incursions on devices). Am I missing something?
Forming a PAN only requires the ownership of a commlink or deck. I guess a living persona can't be a master of a PAN, but I don't think that's so terrible. High device rating commlinks with high Firewall are in everyone's grasp, an nearly everyone's budget if they want one. An Intuition Mage can do a solid job taking care of a PAN too.
Yes, they could grab a commlink and form a PAN that way. But if they're going through the commlink or deck, they're working as a regular matrix user, and are unable to use any of their resonance abilities. In other words, to be an effective hacker, they have to stop being a technomancer and be a decker.
I know but the Core Book put it in way that it seems the only logical choice, maybe it's juste me ...
many of you are talking about the drop in usefulness of the Technomancer, I'm at my first game and one of my player is playing a Technomancer. I don'y see where is the problem with them ... maybe because I haven't a Decker player
The Core Book also goes into a lot of detail about other things that are horrible choices. Sure, if you make a build based on bricking devices, that's a viable option. But otherwise, there's more efficient, elegant, and profitable ways to go about business.
And here's the problems with the TM:
1. They need a high Resonance priority, for obvious reasons, but also require a high Attributes priority, because all their hacking is based off their mental attributes. This gets even worse when you want to be something, anything else than Human or Elf.
2. Because of 1, they usually start with either lower skill levels than hackers, or more hyperspecialized builds to remain somewhat effective.
3. Even so, because of 1, they typically have lower matrix attributes and less flexibility than deckers, because if they want to be good at sleazing their way through systems, they have to base their mental attributes on that, rather than reconfiguring their deck.
4. In the past, TMs could be pretty awesome riggers. There was even a whole Stream (the TM version of magical traditions) based on it. The new edition took that concept and locked it in a cell with Bubba the Love Troll and sandpaper for lube.
5. Complex Forms used to be the Resonance version of programs, because TMs didn't use regular matrix gear, and in fact had to learn separate copies of the same skill if they wanted to hack using commlinks. Now, the CFs are patterned off mage spells, and are of situational use, at best, in the matrix. They can't emulate or spoof programs at all unless they submerge and waste an echo for each program!
6. Because of the resource focus and hyperspecialization forced on them, TMs tend to be rather useless in the physical world, whereas hackers can at least get some ware to help. This is even more damning now that you can't stay in the van and take over the building like you used to.
Basically, combining the changes to the Matrix, returning to the abomination sacred cow quaint priority system instead of the Point Buy system, and core level alterations to how TMs work all make playing a TM an experience akin to waking up in a hardcore BDSM parlor gagged and without knowing any safewords.
-
Basically, combining the changes to the Matrix, returning to the abomination sacred cow quaint priority system instead of the Point Buy system, and core level alterations to how TMs work all make playing a TM an experience akin to waking up in a hardcore BDSM parlor gagged and without knowing any safewords.
A bit much, but that there isn't a true Point Buy (sorry, people, but slapping the name on the Karma Generation doesn't cut it) is the single greatest weakness of the entire edition.
-
Yeah, I hammed it up a bit. But seriously, it is a sacred cow, like the karma advancement method. Deliberately clunky and inelegant because, dammit, that's how it was back in the days of yore. Which also explains the new matrix, extremely expensive decks and control rigs, and so on.
-
> Rigging is totally broken and Rigger 5.0 conveniently ignored many of the problems/ lack of clarity in rigging rules
Broken as in too powerful or broken as in not useful?
-
Yeah, I hammed it up a bit. But seriously, it is a sacred cow, like the karma advancement method. Deliberately clunky and inelegant because, dammit, that's how it was back in the days of yore. Which also explains the new matrix, extremely expensive decks and control rigs, and so on.
Priority is pretty much a sacred cow, yeah (same with the ludicrous prices returning to implants, decks and rigs this edition).
I would prefer a different cost mechanism on advancement. I'm very partial to the costs that L5R puts on raising attributes and skills (see below).
Attributes: New Value x 4
Skills: New Value
-
(same with the ludicrous prices returning to implants, decks and rigs this edition).
My GM took one look at the 5e costs and was like "okay, use the 4A costs for Availability, nuyen, and Essence where they're more favorable to you, because this is ludicrous." And then slapped a flat cost % off decks for the same reason.
-
Basically, combining the changes to the Matrix, returning to the abomination sacred cow quaint priority system instead of the Point Buy system, and core level alterations to how TMs work all make playing a TM an experience akin to waking up in a hardcore BDSM parlor gagged and without knowing any safewords.
You wanna insult the priority system (which I championed and pushed for, very hard, during development not because it was a sacred cow, but because it mostly worked for what we were trying to accomplish), don't be coy and play with strike-outs. It's insulting for all the wrong reason. Just come out and say what's on your mind in a civil tone. Gets you a lot farther with a lot of the people involved, most especially me.
You don't like it (and not everyone does; I get that, and I sympathize), but it accomplished the goal of "Everything has a price" in such a way as to get new people into the game as quickly as possible. I'm at a store at an open table and someone's interested, and they're interested enough to want their own character instead of a pre-gen, then I want to get them actually playing the damn game and not fiddling around with analysis paralysis with the twink point-buy system . (See, I can be a jerk, too.)
Is it as flexible as point buy? Of course not; it wasn't meant to be. And that was one of its selling points: Quickness. Now, you don't have to like it; believe it or not, I'm cool with people not liking my stuff, or the stuff that I pushed for (I didn't actually write chargen, I just complained vocally about certain things). But I do want people to know that I didn't suggest it because it was grognard nostalgia; that was a side effect. If any of the other half-dozen or so efforts we explored while we were trying to get chargen written had worked better at accomplishing our goals, I would have pushed for that instead. They didn't.
I'm sorry you feel like you didn't get a safeword, but I want you to understand WHY we went back to Priorities. Doesn't change anything, I'm sure, but there it is anyway.
A bit much, but that there isn't a true Point Buy (sorry, people, but slapping the name on the Karma Generation doesn't cut it) is the single greatest weakness of the entire edition.
For YOU. You need to start emphasizing things that are your opinion as such, instead of stating them as irrefutable facts. Goes for a lot of people in these threads, not just you, A4BG, but yours are the instances that really stick in my craw for whatever reason.
-
My GM took one look at the 5e costs and was like "okay, use the 4A costs for Availability, nuyen, and Essence where they're more favorable to you, because this is ludicrous." And then slapped a flat cost % off decks for the same reason.
The unfortunate thing is that that was necessary. I do believe that Mirikon is right on that the prices are so high because that's how it was in SR3 and before. The worst is that Muscle Toner was only 25k per level in SR3 and Muscle Augmentation was 20k per level then. Level 2 of the Bioware equivalent of Wired Reflexes was more expensive, but the first level was 20k cheaper than it is now.
-
The unfortunate thing is that that was necessary. I do believe that Mirikon is right on that the prices are so high because that's how it was in SR3 and before. The worst is that Muscle Toner was only 25k per level in SR3 and Muscle Augmentation was 20k per level then. Level 2 of the Bioware equivalent of Wired Reflexes was more expensive, but the first level was 20k cheaper than it is now.
I don't necessarily disagree. I also don't know what prompted some of that.
I don't agree that everything in 4A was the right price, but I can understand why there was grumbling.
-
The unfortunate thing is that that was necessary. I do believe that Mirikon is right on that the prices are so high because that's how it was in SR3 and before. The worst is that Muscle Toner was only 25k per level in SR3 and Muscle Augmentation was 20k per level then. Level 2 of the Bioware equivalent of Wired Reflexes was more expensive, but the first level was 20k cheaper than it is now.
I don't necessarily disagree. I also don't know what prompted some of that.
I don't agree that everything in 4A was the right price, but I can understand why there was grumbling.
The problem is that there were a lot of prices that got bumped to a point higher than they've ever been seemingly because of returning to "tradition".
You wanna insult the priority system (which I championed and pushed for, very hard, during development not because it was a sacred cow, but because it mostly worked for what we were trying to accomplish), don't be coy and play with strike-outs. It's insulting for all the wrong reason. Just come out and say what's on your mind in a civil tone. Gets you a lot farther with a lot of the people involved, most especially me.
Expressing severe displeasure and pointing out the blatant flaws in Priority Generation isn't insulting you or the other developers.
You don't like it (and not everyone does; I get that, and I sympathize), but it accomplished the goal of "Everything has a price" in such a way as to get new people into the game as quickly as possible. I'm at a store at an open table and someone's interested, and they're interested enough to want their own character instead of a pre-gen, then I want to get them actually playing the damn game and not fiddling around with analysis paralysis with the twink point-buy system . (See, I can be a jerk, too.)
Is it as flexible as point buy? Of course not; it wasn't meant to be. And that was one of its selling points: Quickness. Now, you don't have to like it; believe it or not, I'm cool with people not liking my stuff, or the stuff that I pushed for (I didn't actually write chargen, I just complained vocally about certain things). But I do want people to know that I didn't suggest it because it was grognard nostalgia; that was a side effect. If any of the other half-dozen or so efforts we explored while we were trying to get chargen written had worked better at accomplishing our goals, I would have pushed for that instead. They didn't.
"Everything has a Price" has seemingly become a bludgeon to be perfectly honest. The philosophy can be used without going overboard as it seems has been done.
Beyond introducing newbies and helping them make their first couple of characters, sacrificing Flexibility for Quickness is really a piss poor trade-off.
You might have championed it because you thought it better fit the philosophy (I honestly believe that you did think it was best), but I (and I bet several others) think that others did so out of the nostalgia factor.
And, to be honest, the word you used 'strike through' on is more insulting than anything anyone else has said. That term is generally used as a tool of shaming to try to make people "play games right".
-
Yes, they could grab a commlink and form a PAN that way. But if they're going through the commlink or deck, they're working as a regular matrix user, and are unable to use any of their resonance abilities. In other words, to be an effective hacker, they have to stop being a technomancer and be a decker.
That isn't my reading. They only lose the ability to use their resonance abilities when they enter the Matrix through a device. You just have to be the owner of a commlink that is the master of the PAN to defend against matrix actions. They are not defending devices with their icon/persona.
I never played a former edition of Shadowrun, so I don't know what I am missing from 4th. I read Unwired and it seems like Streams and Paragons would be nice helps to better customize/specialize/hybridize technomancers that are an easy add and don't know why they weren't part of Data Trails. Complex Form Fade values are also very high for their benefit, but again, that isn't a drastic fix. A sprite being able to share a marks with its technomancer would be very nice:). The big problem with technomancers is that their fluff does not match their crunch. What the book implies they are good at they are not and what they are good at is never really mentioned and seems counter to that fluff. Additionally, they don't have a way to increase meat initiative (though I guess that is supposed to be mitigated by the fact they can max their matrix initiative dice) the way that adepts, magicians, and cybered characters do except with Lightning Reflexes (a big karma sink), getting 'ware, and drugs. I think technomancers and drugs work great together, but it really shouldn't be a necessity. I also like technomancers with 'ware, but as writtenin the fluff, technomancers seem to be ant-ware, but I find that 'ware and compliment/compensate quite a bit without much Resonance loss. I think some kind perk to 'ware use could be helpful and logical for technomancers who are said to have a natural affinity to machines. Perhaps an echo that mimics something like the Burnout's Way could help in this regard.
Below are some Technomancer archetypes that I think work (though perhaps less than previous editions, but I don't have a comparison):
1. Technoshaman/Pet-class:
Playing a with lots of registered sprites brings a lot to both matrix work, legwork, and meatwork. Having a Fault Sprite take out Host IC will you finish hacking, Having Crack Sprites do Matrix Searches for you while you sit in a static veil bubble snooping on someone's commlink all night, loaning out machine sprites to team members who can get a lot out of them, etc. It's definitely a different style of play than other archetypes, more time intensive, but can be a lot of fun. Being able to riskily overcompile a big ol' sprite sometimes is helpful too (ex. Level 12) to get the job done for you. These characters are not going to have the full breadth of hacking chops of deckers, but they don't need them. The have sprites that can do a lot of the work, and just enough complex forms to help them about.
2. Jack of All Trades/Skillwire:
This is another playable option, though I think less fun than some others. Basically picking up a swillwire/skilljack system, Have a machine sprite run diagnostics, and bam, character gets higher dice rolls and limits on every skillsoft. A character like this can have utility both in the meat and the matrix, and if the character keeps a decent Resonance, and still have lots of beefy enough helpful sprites.
3. Techno-Riggers
Technomancers can still make great riggers. Sure, it does take them 30 karma to get a control rig echo and skinlink (for rig and direct connect bonuses), but in the meantime, a machine sprite can plenty of dice pool/limit bonuses to vehicle/gunnery tests. After 30 karma, it could be argued that technomancers could have an edge, as they can do what any mundane rigger could do and have access to sprites/CFs. Further down the road, they could get up to an equivilant control rig 3, which most riggers don't get.
4. Combat-Technomancers
I've played with these before. While on average not quite as fast or big as a street sam and not quite as dodgy as a combat adept (diagnostics on reaction enhancer legality would help with this), they can still be quite lethal. Appropriate, limited 'ware, focused skills, and machine sprites go a long way here. While unlike a combat decker in that they really can't solo hack. Teamed up with a decker, the combat technomancer can provide sprites/action economy to matrix work, still use complex forms (diffusions, resonance veils, etc.) that can make a decker's life a whole lot easier. At 30 karma, they can get a Pain Editor echo. Most characters can only get the real version at character generation with the Restricted Gear quality, as it is tough to get in play, but technomancers can. Jack of all Trades and Drugs go a long way here too pick up low level skills and to increase initiative.
5. Technofaces
A legwork and social infiltration pro. Social and sneak dice boosting armor + Machine Sprites go a long way here. As does having a face that can do their own or have sprites do matrix search tests, simultaneously. Profiler is my favorite quality for these type of characters, as it can leverage matrix search for even higher dice pools for key social rolls. Though possible to make them also be hackers, hacking technofaces are not going to be on par in the matrix as deckers. With skinlink and some hacking skills, getting through locks, adjusting cameras, etc. become easy. They can talk or Resonance Veil their way past suspicious humans and computers alike. Like the combat-technomancer too, they still have a lot to offer the dedicated team decker so they don't have to deal with matrix threats alone.
Note: I agree that the technoshaman/pet-class is really the best way to play a primary matrix specialist. I've been playing with heavily 'wared Resonance 1 more "techno-adepts," technomancers that do their matrix work more like deckers that eschew CFs and sprites in favor of high skills and attributes, but it's admittedly pretty delicate/limited way to build and not for everyone. I have been having a hard time making a high Resonance "Resonancer" work too, a technomancer that uses Complex Forms to do the bulk of their Matrix work and heavily invests in them at character generation, as well as really only focusing on technomancer skills (Tasking group and Software). High Fade and nebulous rules make this tough though. But for example, a Resonancer would use Transcendent Grid instead of grid hopping, Editor instead of Edit File, Puppeteer to invite marks (youch but if this character can't hack, this is the only way into a host), Resonance Veil instead of Hide, Resonance Channel instead of direct connecting (if they do end up hacking), etc. Registered Sprites would be use to sustain complex forms like Diffusions of Matrix Attribute and Resonance Veil. They may not even need the Computer skill as Sprites can do Matrix Perception and and Matrix Search for them. The perk is that they don't need any 'ware/gear, don't have to worry about noise, and can work as fast or slow as they need (no overwatch or awareness of of target on failed tests). They probably won't have much meatworld capability but this is more of a stay at home or in the van hacker. Fade resistance is their biggest challenge, so a character like this will focus on having a high willpower, Resonance, use Willpower boosting drugs, and probably take the Otaku to Technomancer Quality. Again, difficult to make work (I am still working), but perhaps another way to make a Technomancer Matrix specialist.
The other ways (perhaps a the skillwire one could also do matrix work if need be, but that is kind of that role anyway) hybridize into other areas but can provide really helpful matrix support. Though the fluff doesn't indicate it, to me it seems that Technomancers play best as taking non-matrix specialties (combat, rigging, face, etc.) and providing Matrix support. Matrix specialists take on a lot of pressure as hacking is stressful, solitary, and can go south real quick. Being able to have a dedicated team decker AND a matrix support technomancer can make matrix work more interesting, less solitary, and hopefully more fun and more successful too! I will also note that adepts tend to be better at their specialties than hybridized technomancers, but technomancers can have some more flexibility as they grow (Adept power vs machine sprite diagnostics dice pool bonuses: adept powers are fixed and Diagnostics can be used on different devices and for different skill tests), provide matrix support, and are less likely to have their special status easily discovered (adepts can be identified with a single hit on an assensing test vs 5 for technomancers, they have powers that light up in the astral while Resonance effects/sprites are a little more nebulous in their origin, etc.).
Basically, combining the changes to the Matrix, returning to the abomination sacred cow quaint priority system instead of the Point Buy system, and core level alterations to how TMs work all make playing a TM an experience akin to waking up in a hardcore BDSM parlor gagged and without knowing any safewords.
Safewords aren't going to matter much if you're gagged. :-)
-
For what it is worth, I like the priority system. Of course, when other options are presented and one of those will make a stronger character and everyone else is using those rules for character creation, sure I'll use them. But I've always liked the trade-offs that the priority system enforces -- to me they are interesting.
I may quibble about exactly what you get at what level in different categories, but the system itself I like, and in the limited sample of people I've seen learning the game (including myself once upon a time) none of them found it difficult -- and in fact for the most part making characters was a bit of a relief after some other game systems. With the priority system more of the game is playing your character, not in the building of it (as in: with some systems I find character creation takes a very long time, yet it is still easy to have massive discrepancies in how effective characters are, so if you put in all the build time and didn't get an effective character out of it, you quickly felt like you'd lost at a key part of the game).
I like that there are other options* in the character options book, but quite pleased that priority build was in the main book. Which helps balance out my aggravation with some other fundamental choices that were made in how rules were presented :p (I like my rules books to be reference books with splashes of fluff that are so concise and so appealing that they pull you to look at it. I have neither the time nor patience to want to read sections linearly from start to finish). But those are preferences -- if a game system ever made me perfectly happy I'm sure many others would loathe it.
I'm just posting this because most of the time we talk about the stuff we don't like, and not the stuff that we do. Which makes it easy to feel that 'everybody hates this' because they are the only ones talking about it -- the ones who like it are too busy having fun playing the game with it. So sometimes it just feels important to point out when I like something that others don't.
* well, one other strong option in sum to 10. Life modules is interesting but in some ways it seems to have even less flexibility because the vast majority of stories you assemble with it are horrifically inefficient. And the karma build system, so far as I've been able to tell by messing around with it, flat out makes no sense for any remotely specialized build (including intended effects, like taking advantage of meta-human attribute limits. A troll with average strength and body uses up almost half your karma, for example).
-
One major sting with the new Priority is that you get fewer attribute and skill points than the SR3 version (and SR3 had two fewer standard attributes).
The Attribute and Skill sections of the SR3 Priority Table:
Attributes
A- 30
B- 27
C- 24
D- 21
E- 18
Skills
A- 50
B- 40
C- 34
D- 30
E- 27
Now considering the additional attributes, the SR3 attribute column wouldn't really pose a problem.
A good adaptation of the SR3 skills column would be (notice the skill group points are identical to what's presented in SR5 Core):
A- 50/10
B- 40/5
C- 34/2
D- 30/0
E- 27/0
With regard to prices, making things as expensive as or more expensive than the SR3 equivalents is silly because of the lower character generation resources in SR5. When you can potentially get a cool million in resources, the prices aren't bad, but with the SR5 resources, the prices present a massive problem.
All in all, the fewer points and fewer resources you give in generation, the more the 'optimization' that some do very heavily is encouraged. Conversely, giving more encourages diversification.
-
Trading Flexibility for Quickness is what D&D does. It is what World of Warcraft does. It is, in short, what class-based, level-based systems do, and do well, mostly. When one of the selling points of your system is a level-less, class-less system, that implies the Flexibility to create characters outside of archetypes. When that flexibility has been stripped out in the name of 'streamlining' things down to choices of A, B, C, D, or E, then that's jarring, to say the least. It is like saying you have a sweet 'Vette, but riding up in a Chevette. There's a reason why the majority of level-less, class-less systems tend towards some form of point buy.
Don't get me wrong, it is nice for newbies or people who can't handle math (or at least Excel), but for a lot of people who are bast the noob stage, being able to try new things is one of the draws to keep playing. It is one of the reasons I walked away from World of Warcraft. Look at any level 100 Warlock, and they're going to be in 2-3 different sets of gear, with 2-3 different skill sets, and they're going to be dealing the same attacks over and over again. In Shadowrun, at least in 4E, there was a wealth of different possibilities in different metatypes, spell selection, skills, gear, and more. I could be a Troll Mage, and be good at it, too. Sure, Trolls were expensive, BP-wise, but points could be shifted around easily enough that I could do what I wanted. But in 5th, that Troll Mage has to devote an A-C priority just for the metatype, meaning you're either going to be an aspected mage with good skills and stats, a mage with good stats and crap skills, or a mage with good skills and crap stats. There's no wiggle room. And that's for a fairly basic concept. Things like an AI Face, a Pixie Street Samurai, Changeling Ghoul Adept, and so on are much harder to put together with these restrictions.
YMMV, but for me, systems like GURPS, Champions, M&M, Cortex, and Shadowrun 4th are far better.
-
I agree with the skills for sure, Guns. I'd personally drop the SR3 Attributes down by 2 each if using those numbers for SR5, though. 24 Attribute points as the 'average' choice would mean said 'runner would be able to have 4s in all normal Attributes as a base-line human (or similar above-par stats for all the other metahumans). E at 18 gives them the ability to put all Attributes at 3 with two extra, whereas it being at 16 would be all Attributes at the base-line 3 (until you start making concessions). I mean, its not like many builds take Attributes E anyways, but if you do it should be lower in my mind.
And I agree with you as well Mirikon; I love Priority for getting things done efficiently in character creation, but a true Point-Buy would be nice. Your example of the Troll Mage is exactly the problem; it is freaking hard to make a balanced Troll anything using Priority, whereas Point Buy has much more flexibility. Also, its even worse, as you have to dedicate A-B, not A-C. There's plenty I could do with C for Troll.
-
Yeah, I hammed it up a bit. But seriously, it is a sacred cow, like the karma advancement method. Deliberately clunky and inelegant because, dammit, that's how it was back in the days of yore. Which also explains the new matrix, extremely expensive decks and control rigs, and so on.
Priority is pretty much a sacred cow, yeah (same with the ludicrous prices returning to implants, decks and rigs this edition).
I would prefer a different cost mechanism on advancement. I'm very partial to the costs that L5R puts on raising attributes and skills (see below).
Attributes: New Value x 4
Skills: New Value
As the one person who writes for both L5R and Shadowrun, first, thank you for buying things I've worked on, and second, there are vast differences in each system that make a direct comparison... tricky at best. Roll-and-keep vs 'all dice are the same' alone is a massive issue.
As for sacred cow? Priority wasn't in the rules draft for 5th ed at all. It was several iterations of chargen before it came into the discussion at all. There's a lot of reasons for that and I'm not about to drag them out, but, remember, this is the team that removed Fastjack, killed Great Dragons, and is quite willing to enter uncharted territory. "As a writer, sometimes you have to kill your babies."
In terms of costs of certain things, you might be surprised by who has argued (behind the scenes) in a similar manner. Obviously, the details of that stay behind closed doors, but there are aspects similar to it that have come up here and others I can bring forth as examples to chew on. Opening a new thread for that in a sec, keep an eye out.
-
I agree with the skills for sure, Guns. I'd personally drop the SR3 Attributes down by 2 each if using those numbers for SR5, though. 24 Attribute points as the 'average' choice would mean said 'runner would be able to have 4s in all normal Attributes as a base-line human (or similar above-par stats for all the other metahumans). E at 18 gives them the ability to put all Attributes at 3 with two extra, whereas it being at 16 would be all Attributes at the base-line 3 (until you start making concessions). I mean, its not like many builds take Attributes E anyways, but if you do it should be lower in my mind.
And I agree with you as well Mirikon; I love Priority for getting things done efficiently in character creation, but a true Point-Buy would be nice. Your example of the Troll Mage is exactly the problem; it is freaking hard to make a balanced Troll anything using Priority, whereas Point Buy has much more flexibility. Also, its even worse, as you have to dedicate A-B, not A-C. There's plenty I could do with C for Troll.
Again, if you give more points, you encourage people to diversify and giving more resources makes those pieces of gear/implants that are considered more "fluffy" more attractive, especially given how prices were jacked up whereas when you give less points, you encourage dipping into 'optimization techniques' and less resources discourages anything not directly conducive to increasing one's primary role in the party.
As the one person who writes for both L5R and Shadowrun, first, thank you for buying things I've worked on, and second, there are vast differences in each system that make a direct comparison... tricky at best. Roll-and-keep vs 'all dice are the same' alone is a massive issue.
The skill cost is the main thing that I'd really like to see in SR (the attribute cost would be nice, but not imperative to me). The biggest problem with advancement (beyond the ludicrous pricing of implants compared to cash rewards) is that it is glacial because of how the costs to increase skill rise exponentially. While there are those that for some strange reason really like glacial advancement, it's still better to have speedier advancement so that people can actually see growth in a reasonable amount of time. The fact is that with few exceptions most games don't run that long, so advancement in SR pretty much means that you aren't seeing any real expansion during the course of a campaign.
-
Not to throw fuel on the fire or anything; I'm genuinely curious, what does point buy do that Karma generation doesn't?
-
I agree with the skills for sure, Guns. I'd personally drop the SR3 Attributes down by 2 each if using those numbers for SR5, though. 24 Attribute points as the 'average' choice would mean said 'runner would be able to have 4s in all normal Attributes as a base-line human (or similar above-par stats for all the other metahumans). E at 18 gives them the ability to put all Attributes at 3 with two extra, whereas it being at 16 would be all Attributes at the base-line 3 (until you start making concessions). I mean, its not like many builds take Attributes E anyways, but if you do it should be lower in my mind.
And I agree with you as well Mirikon; I love Priority for getting things done efficiently in character creation, but a true Point-Buy would be nice. Your example of the Troll Mage is exactly the problem; it is freaking hard to make a balanced Troll anything using Priority, whereas Point Buy has much more flexibility. Also, its even worse, as you have to dedicate A-B, not A-C. There's plenty I could do with C for Troll.
Again, if you give more points, you encourage people to diversify and giving more resources makes those pieces of gear/implants that are considered more "fluffy" more attractive, especially given how prices were jacked up whereas when you give less points, you encourage dipping into 'optimization techniques' and less resources discourages anything not directly conducive to increasing one's primary role in the party.
Couldn't giving more points also encourage even more optimization or multiple specialties?
-
Couldn't giving more points also encourage even more optimization or multiple specialties?
Those that are most heavy into the 'optimization' probably would still do it, but giving less because of them at the expense of pretty much forcing others to dip their toes into those techniques is like cutting off a finger to spite the foot.
-
Not to throw fuel on the fire or anything; I'm genuinely curious, what does point buy do that Karma generation doesn't?
Besides having a more elegant design? Point buy encourages people to be good at 2-3 things (a main role, and a couple others). Karmagen, based on how the costs scale nonlinearly, encourages people to either hyperspecialize or have a large number of mediocre skills. Problem being that, past street level, mediocre skills aren't going to cut it typically.
-
Not to throw fuel on the fire or anything; I'm genuinely curious, what does point buy do that Karma generation doesn't?
Besides having a more elegant design? Point buy encourages people to be good at 2-3 things (a main role, and a couple others). Karmagen, based on how the costs scale nonlinearly, encourages people to either hyperspecialize or have a large number of mediocre skills. Problem being that, past street level, mediocre skills aren't going to cut it typically.
Elegance surely is in the eye of the beholder, no? Personally, I certainly prefer building a character with the same constraints I'll be using to progress my character later. To my mind, it is more elegant to have the same system for both creation and progression as opposed to having to learn one system to build and another to progress.
And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.
I just don't think we're seeing the same side of the coin on this, but thanks for answering.
-
And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.
As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.
-
And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.
As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, for a change. I just don't see how diversification applies to the character generation systems at play where karma generation vs "true" point buy is concerned. There's an opportunity cost to building with Karma because of non-linear progression, but how judging by threads on this very forum most people weren't building with the standard 400BP of 4th Edition either because it was too limiting.
So again, to my mind the issue of diversification, or the lack thereof, amongst players at any given table isn't a system issue as much as it is a table issue. If 4 players build for specialization and 1 player builds for generalization and they all used the same build system, is that a system problem or a table problem?
-
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, for a change. I just don't see how diversification applies to the character generation systems at play where karma generation vs "true" point buy is concerned. There's an opportunity cost to building with Karma because of non-linear progression, but how judging by threads on this very forum most people weren't building with the standard 400BP of 4th Edition either because it was too limiting.
So again, to my mind the issue of diversification, or the lack thereof, amongst players at any given table isn't a system issue as much as it is a table issue. If 4 players build for specialization and 1 player builds for generalization and they all used the same build system, is that a system problem or a table problem?
With regard to Karma Generation, the exponential cost increases discourages diversification because to hit the benchmarks for a good chance of success, it leaves one with very little to put into other things. This is especially true if one tries to make an Ork or Troll that is good at what their natural talents lean toward (or even an Elf in the case of social oriented endeavors).
A karma total of 1,000 to 1,200 would be better with the way karma advancement works for diversification even if it did lead to heavy optimization people who do so no matter what abusing the ever-loving frak out of it.
-
And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.
As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.
To an extent true, but also recall that for most tests, which are unopposed, 4 dice total is enough to get an auto-hit and, thus, success at a task. It's when things ge opposed that things shift, but that's a whole other discussion. :)
-
Emphasis mine:
With regard to Karma Generation, the exponential cost increases discourages diversification because to hit the benchmarks for a good chance of success, it leaves one with very little to put into other things. This is especially true if one tries to make an Ork or Troll that is good at what their natural talents lean toward (or even an Elf in the case of social oriented endeavors).
A karma total of 1,000 to 1,200 would be better with the way karma advancement works for diversification even if it did lead to heavy optimization people who do so no matter what abusing the ever-loving frak out of it.
Good chance of success is wholly dependent on table, though. If your opponents are PR0 through 3, you only need 12 dice to be reliably able to succeed. If your opponents are PR5 or 6, you need 18++. So again, isn't this a table dependent thing and not a system issue?
And as for the amount of karma, that's easily house ruled, just like the alternate creation methods (i.e. street/prime, merc/high life/etc). The 800 karma limit is for a certain type of game, and judging by posts on this very forum a lot of people generated characters in 4th Edition with 750 karma instead of the book recommended 600.
-
One major sting with the new Priority is that you get fewer attribute and skill points than the SR3 version (and SR3 had two fewer standard attributes).
But 2nd gave more than did first, and I think 3rd gave more than 2nd. Maybe the problem is that it made new characters too good? ;-)
In other words, how powerful/flexible to make new characters is obviously an editorial decision that people aren't all going to agree on. Being too limited is frustrating -- but on the other hand constraints breed creativity. I had a blast making a character for a (5th) street-scum level PbP campaign (that sadly seems to have been still born). When I first looked at BCDEE as priorities I despaired, but as I got into it I still ended up with a pretty interesting character with an interesting set of strengths (the GM did set a target of 10-12 dice for our ‘good’ skills which did really help).
No game is going to have a power level that pleases everyone, but so long as it can be fairly easily tweaked by house rules they just need to choose one, and make it consistent with the examples and fluff.
-
Elegance surely is in the eye of the beholder, no? Personally, I certainly prefer building a character with the same constraints I'll be using to progress my character later. To my mind, it is more elegant to have the same system for both creation and progression as opposed to having to learn one system to build and another to progress.
Well, the other part of it is that I would have made everything advance as it does in chargen with point buy. The exponential cost is another sacred cow that ought to be allowed to die an ignominious death.
And as far as encouraging diversity goes; isn't that a table specific thing as opposed to a system one? I mean, some tables hyperspecialize while others generalize, and I'd wager most strike a balance in between the two systems. I fail to see how karma generation and point buy are any different in encouraging (or discouraging) either. You can do both with both systems, depending on what the expectation of the table is.
As things stand, if one diversifies, they do end up with mediocre to low 'levels' in their skills. This is not conducive to success, and outside of some outliers on various internet forums (most of them vocally gripe about "roll-players") success is far more enjoyable than failure.
To an extent true, but also recall that for most tests, which are unopposed, 4 dice total is enough to get an auto-hit and, thus, success at a task. It's when things ge opposed that things shift, but that's a whole other discussion. :)
Assuming, of course, that the threshold of the test is 1. That's fine for a data search to get the name of the DJ playing Club Penumbra tonight, but how many of the rolls that matter (combat, legwork, setting charges, jumping from a second story ledge, bypassing security alarms, talking your way past a guard, etc.) are ones that have a threshold of 1 and are unopposed? The answer is almost none of them.
-
One hit does not success make in most instances. Thresholds are very rarely at a 1 unless you're talking about things where a PC probably shouldn't be rolling like cooking a meal or some such.
And as for the amount of karma, that's easily house ruled, just like the alternate creation methods (i.e. street/prime, merc/high life/etc). The 800 karma limit is for a certain type of game, and judging by posts on this very forum a lot of people generated characters in 4th Edition with 750 karma instead of the book recommended 600.
The original incarnation of Karma Generation in SR4 was 750 (it became 1,000 in SR4A).
In other words, how powerful/flexible to make new characters is obviously an editorial decision that people aren't all going to agree on. Being too limited is frustrating -- but on the other hand constraints breed creativity.
No, constraint does NOT breed creativity. It stifles creativity and breeds frustration as it cuts out far more character ideas than it creates.
-
No, constraint does NOT breed creativity. It stifles creativity and breeds frustration as it cuts out far more character ideas than it creates.
Clearly we differ on this. Strong chance that when we differ on something so fundamental to the rest of the decisions, we'll come to different conclusions on most other design decisions too.
So rather than chasing you through this thread, disagreeing point by point, please just note that at least one active player and GM sees these issues in an extremely different light than you do.
-
No, constraint does NOT breed creativity. It stifles creativity and breeds frustration as it cuts out far more character ideas than it creates.
Clearly we differ on this. Strong chance that when we differ on something so fundamental to the rest of the decisions, we'll come to different conclusions on most other design decisions too.
So rather than chasing you through this thread, disagreeing point by point, please just note that at least one active player and GM sees these issues in an extremely different light than you do.
It's still a fact that the more constraints, the more character ideas become nonviable.
-
It's still a fact that the more constraints, the more character ideas become nonviable.
Different amounts of infinite concepts...
-
Constraint can breed creativity, if used in moderation. But taken too far, it is basically straightjacketing creativity. Telling a group of D&D characters that they all have to have a reason to be in Luskan at level 1 is a constraint. Restricting the game so that there must be one Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard in the party is taking constraint too far.
-
And as for the amount of karma, that's easily house ruled, just like the alternate creation methods (i.e. street/prime, merc/high life/etc). The 800 karma limit is for a certain type of game, and judging by posts on this very forum a lot of people generated characters in 4th Edition with 750 karma instead of the book recommended 600.
The original incarnation of Karma Generation in SR4 was 750 (it became 1,000 in SR4A).
I stand corrected. I was misremembering; I saw a lot of characters on these forums built with 600 BP instead of 400. Karma I didn't see much at all.
-
Constraint can breed creativity, if used in moderation. But taken too far, it is basically straightjacketing creativity. Telling a group of D&D characters that they all have to have a reason to be in Luskan at level 1 is a constraint. Restricting the game so that there must be one Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard in the party is taking constraint too far.
Exactly so.
Constraints should be applied almost solely at the level of individual tables and done within reason. The system should be set up to give ample amounts of points and/or other resources to encourage diversification while neither particularly encouraging nor discouraging 'optimization'.
Take one of the most common concepts generally seen for this game--the ex-military guy/gal. With points as they are, you have to seriously curtail or even cut out entirely skills that the character should be at least at the Trained (possibly even Proficient) level in just by virtue of making it through Basic Training and AIT just to make a mechanically legal character. And this doesn't even include the skills they'd have naturally learned over the course of their life before entering the military. Heck, even taking the level of firearms training such a character should have (the Firearms group) is heavily looked down upon by many because the number of points given makes looking at efficiency essential to many and even preferable to many more.
-
Yeah, I agree there. As a Marine (been out for a bit over two years), here's a good example of what you 'need' to succeed (or not get reamed).
Your base-line enlisted 'mook' should have a dice pool of around 6-10 for Automatics, Gymnastics, Perception, Running and Etiquette. Those are your baseline necessities to do the job as a basic rifleman (and I mean basic, not 0311 Rifleman), and the variation in dice pool goes from your barely passable folks to the ones who are good, but not quite up to elite standards. There might be some higher or lower by sheer talent or suckery, but the latter tends to not be enjoyable.
They should have base familiarity (1-2 Levels in the Skill) with First Aid, Computers (everyone should have a point or two in that in Shadowrun), Leadership, Instruction, Con (some Con helps get access to the Skate-r-ade), Swim, Survival, Tracking, Sneaking, Free-Fall, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Heavy Weapons, Clubs, Blades and Navigation (that last isn't required for Lieutenants). Everybody is shown basic first aid, trained in basic hand-to-hand with and without weapons, given the opportunity to fire an M240 and M203, etc. Again, it could easily be higher for those people who are talented or interested, or someone got away with never being able to throw a grenade more than ten feet (you never want to be that guy, as funny as the videos where luckily no-one got hurt are).
This doesn't get into whatever your actual job is. Some folks are using Chemistry for CBRN or water purification, Electronic Warfare for your antennae huggers, Demolitions for EOD, Industrial Mechanic for engineers, other Mechanics for personnel who maintain vehicles, Pilot for drivers (if you're operating an aircraft, you're not a mook), Pistols if you're lucky to get sent for qualifying with them. There's also people whose jobs focus on skills already mentioned; a guy who's been in the turret on an MRAP or HMMWV for ten months probably has decent Heavy Weapons/Gunnery skill.
I mean, let's count this up for your baseline average-achiever. Average Attributes, so all of them are at 3, has a dice pool of 4 for his familiar things (to buy 1 hit) and 8 for his day-to-day duties. 4 Points into Automatics (3 Automatics, 1 Specialization in Assault Rifles as they've only ever let him regularly shoot an M-16), 5 in Gymnastics, 5 in Running, 4 in Perception (3 Perception, 1 Specialization in Searching), 4 in Etiquette (3 Etiquette, 1 Specialization in Military Culture). 22 here.
Now, we've got 1 point in First Aid, Computers, Leadership, Instruction, Con, Swim, Survival, Tracking, Sneaking, Free-Fall, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Heavy Weapons, Clubs, Blades and Navigation. 16 more for a total of 38, to keep count.
Now there's this guy's job. What does our average-achiever do? Let's say he's Comms. Now we give them 4 points in Electronic Warfare (3 Electronic Warfare, 1 Specialization in Communications) and 4 Points in Hardware (3 Hardware, 1 Specialization in Radios). That adds 8 more to a grand total of 46 skill points. The only Group that would be completely applicable is Athletics, so if you put 5 points there you could say 35/5. Puts what you need to make a 'basic' person at a level really close to Priority B in Skills. And this is no Special Forces guy. This isn't even dedicated infantry/machine gunners/mortarmen/assaultmen, who train for their shit a hell of a lot more. This doesn't even factor in for hobbies/interests/activities that are represented by active skills instead of knowledge skills.
-
Yeah, I agree there. As a Marine (been out for a bit over two years), here's a good example of what you 'need' to succeed (or not get reamed).
Your base-line enlisted 'mook' should have a dice pool of around 6-10 for Automatics, Gymnastics, Perception, Running and Etiquette. Those are your baseline necessities to do the job as a basic rifleman (and I mean basic, not 0311 Rifleman), and the variation in dice pool goes from your barely passable folks to the ones who are good, but not quite up to elite standards. There might be some higher or lower by sheer talent or suckery, but the latter tends to not be enjoyable.
They should have base familiarity (1-2 Levels in the Skill) with First Aid, Computers (everyone should have a point or two in that in Shadowrun), Leadership, Instruction, Con (some Con helps get access to the Skate-r-ade), Swim, Survival, Tracking, Sneaking, Free-Fall, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Heavy Weapons, Clubs, Blades and Navigation (that last isn't required for Lieutenants). Everybody is shown basic first aid, trained in basic hand-to-hand with and without weapons, given the opportunity to fire an M240 and M203, etc. Again, it could easily be higher for those people who are talented or interested, or someone got away with never being able to throw a grenade more than ten feet (you never want to be that guy, as funny as the videos where luckily no-one got hurt are).
This doesn't get into whatever your actual job is. Some folks are using Chemistry for CBRN or water purification, Electronic Warfare for your antennae huggers, Demolitions for EOD, Industrial Mechanic for engineers, other Mechanics for personnel who maintain vehicles, Pilot for drivers (if you're operating an aircraft, you're not a mook), Pistols if you're lucky to get sent for qualifying with them. There's also people whose jobs focus on skills already mentioned; a guy who's been in the turret on an MRAP or HMMWV for ten months probably has decent Heavy Weapons/Gunnery skill.
I mean, let's count this up for your baseline average-achiever. Average Attributes, so all of them are at 3, has a dice pool of 4 for his familiar things (to buy 1 hit) and 8 for his day-to-day duties. 4 Points into Automatics (3 Automatics, 1 Specialization in Assault Rifles as they've only ever let him regularly shoot an M-16), 5 in Gymnastics, 5 in Running, 4 in Perception (3 Perception, 1 Specialization in Searching), 4 in Etiquette (3 Etiquette, 1 Specialization in Military Culture). 22 here.
Now, we've got 1 point in First Aid, Computers, Leadership, Instruction, Con, Swim, Survival, Tracking, Sneaking, Free-Fall, Throwing Weapons, Unarmed Combat, Heavy Weapons, Clubs, Blades and Navigation. 16 more for a total of 38, to keep count.
Now there's this guy's job. What does our average-achiever do? Let's say he's Comms. Now we give them 4 points in Electronic Warfare (3 Electronic Warfare, 1 Specialization in Communications) and 4 Points in Hardware (3 Hardware, 1 Specialization in Radios). That adds 8 more to a grand total of 46 skill points. The only Group that would be completely applicable is Athletics, so if you put 5 points there you could say 35/5. Puts what you need to make a 'basic' person at a level really close to Priority B in Skills. And this is no Special Forces guy. This isn't even dedicated infantry/machine gunners/mortarmen/assaultmen, who train for their shit a hell of a lot more. This doesn't even factor in for hobbies/interests/activities that are represented by active skills instead of knowledge skills.
And that's all BEFORE getting into what gets improved because it's where their focus on a Runner Team is. The most likely role would be the combatant, so he'll probably have another 4 or 5 dice in those skills by the time he's at the point where you're creating the character. Not to mention that any Runner worth his salt is gonna have damn good Sneaking.
All in all, after taking into account the Runner training after leaving military life, you're likely looking at well over Priority A in skills with current point totals.
-
And that's your one-enlistment, didn't do anything really interesting person.
-
And that's your one-enlistment, didn't do anything really interesting person.
Yeah, that's why I have to hold it in and not just bust out laughing in someone's face when they bring the "Former Special Forces" character in. Good Lord, before becoming a Runner, that guy would probably need at least double what Priority A skills currently gives, a bit more than Priority A attributes currently gives and have the old school Resources level at A just to account for the goodies put inside his body.
-
To be fair, creating a PR6 equivalent runner easily requires 1200-1400 Karma, and that's just in skills and attributes. I put together a fairly comprehensive review (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=19422.msg346076) a while back of what it takes to build the grunts in the core book. These guys aren't nearly as generalized as MijRai describes but your PR6 grunt is exceptionally good at what he does what with minimum attributes of 4-5 and maximum of 9 and skill groups in the 7+ range (athletics, stealth, close combat, demolitions, firearms, + perception).
In other words, the former-elite-soldier-turned-runner is a pipe dream unless you're playing with far higher starting resources than Standard. Using normal character generation rules, the best you could hope to put together is a POG who got drummed out for his lack of personal hygiene and bad attitude who only turned to the shadows when he couldn't find employment elsewhere.
-
The "Former Elite" or "Former Special Forces" is what I said that I have to hold back laughing in someone's face on.
On just "Former Military", what he describes is the bare minimum to have made it through training (not even serving a whole tour), and it should be possible to make a character from that background with EVERY skill that such a character should have at appropriate levels and still have room to incorporate increases learned after leaving service and new skills picked up at that point. Not to mention that the average in all attributes he mentioned still isn't appropriate since all the physical training would likely have the key physicals (Body, Agility, Strength) and at least Intuition (perhaps Willpower) for mentals at 5s with everything else at at least 3 (possibly 2 for Logic).
It really seems like the points given are intended to try and force people into the whole "street punk who worked his way out of gang life" type deal.
-
I would not give 5s to all physical attributes for people in the military. Mostly 4s with a 5 or two for your active combat MOSs, maybe. But your average dude with the appropriate skills can totally make it with threes and maybe a four or two.
I'd also call that a single full enlistment in a non-combat MOS without undue activity. Average-achiever, not multiple-deployment, stack of ribbons or dedicated to their role/duties kind of person.
I also didn't factor in skill points for janitorial duties or fuck-fuck games (pardon to anyone offended by the title).
-
I would not give 5s to all physical attributes for people in the military. Mostly 4s with a 5 or two for your active combat MOSs, maybe. But your average dude with the appropriate skills can totally make it with threes and maybe a four or two.
I'd also call that a single full enlistment in a non-combat MOS without undue activity. Average-achiever, not multiple-deployment, stack of ribbons or dedicated to their role/duties kind of person.
I could see 4s in the physical attributes, but I'm sorry, with the kind of physical training you go through, I can't see anything less than 4 in physicals. That kind of training WILL end with someone being above average if not well above average (it's one reason that I know that I could never have made it).
-
This is a good reason to not hold that kind of verisimilitude standard to a game with limited chargen resources.
-
No, the generation resources (of all types) need to be enough to accommodate such. I don't give a flying frak what someone who might abuse the system might do with it because that is completely irrelevant.
-
I knew plenty of people who were merely average in their physical attributes, Guns. I was in. Hell, I was more physically fit before I went in than after I got through training. Took me some time to get back to where I was before.
Like I said, though; this was non-combat jobs (of which there are plenty). Anyone meant to be on the front-lines should have higher than average physical attributes.
And I'm more with Guns here; I'd prefer more resources that can be used to flesh a character out with the risk of min-maxing over what is currently available. It doesn't have to be perfect, but some more accuracy would be nice if these characters are meant to be 'standard' runners who've managed to get some experience/come from a relevant background.
-
Like I said, though; this was non-combat jobs (of which there are plenty). Anyone meant to be on the front-lines should have higher than average physical attributes.
Generally, when someone is putting forth that character concept, they're thinking the ones meant to be on the front lines. Very few people even consider the non-combat jobs
-
Why not just use the printed materials to estimate this. Tour of Duty life modules give the basic stats/skills growth from touring a tour. It doesn't seem like much, though more tours would be more impressive.
-
Why not just use the printed materials to estimate this. Tour of Duty life modules give the basic stats/skills growth from touring a tour. It doesn't seem like much, though more tours would be more impressive.
Because, just like every other generation, the life modules suffers from the over-compensation from taking the ones who may or may not abuse things into account.
-
I wasn't talking about them with those stats, I was talking your average military person. I wouldn't even bother trying to make full special forces with CC (though I have a drop-out as a character written up for a game I used to be in). You just can't get enough points scrounged up.
It is hard enough to represent your normal soldier, was my point. A Skills, B Attributes, C/D Nuyen or Race, E Magic to make your 'slightly above average' person? Eugh.
As far as Life Modules go, I'm just not a fan. They may be better than a class system or a rigid tree to move through for CC, but not by too much. Priority/Point-Buys give more flexibility, which lets you add your own twists to things.
-
i bring it up to illustrate that I don't think we can accurately simulate the stats of a serviceman in shadowrun or are supposed to. The game gives the stats of what it think simulates it, so I would take that as more "accurate" for the system.
UCAS Tour of Duty:
Basic training active skills: Firearms Group 1, First Aid 1, Navigation 1, Unarmed combat 1.
It's not accurate to real life, but I would say it's sufficient for the setting
-
Nowhere near sufficient. Again, this is a perfect example of why you don't take system abusers into account when designing character generation.
-
You can do more than one tour and/or add other modules to your life story and/or add your own skills to this. It doesn't include the division you worked in, which provides more skills, nor the attributes gained. But it take this as a estimate for what an average single tour would provide a character (not counting other things they have learned in their life).
-
No you can't. You can take more than one module in the Real Life section, but you can't take the same one more than once. It specifically says that.
-
I'll clarify, I mean take it more than once to simulate the skills being in the military would give you. I am not saying make a character in Life Module, but to look at Life modules if you want to try to simulate what the game thinks certain kinds of history would provide a character.
-
Yeah, I'm not using those to represent a character's stats as a result of their past. Serving 4 years in the military gets you three skills and a group that makes little sense (most people go their entire military service without touching a pistol or longarm).
-
1) Anyone that's insisting a basic stint in a non-combat MOS gets you 5's in all your physical attributes and 5's in several physical skills is plainly not looking at the power curve and dice pool expectations of SR5 the same way the SR5 design team is (and keep in mind, several of us have been there). Handily enough, the core rulebook gives you stats for elite corpsec and elite special forces types, right there, in the Helps and Hindrances chapter, and you can clearly get an idea of what "the best of the best" look and function like (and they're, oddly enough, not much different from what some of you are arguing a one-term rookie straight out of Basic looks like).
Adjusting your expectations is a big part of any edition change, in any game. One of the goals of SR5 was to get people starting out at a little bit lower baseline, and leaving them more room to grow. You can disagree about whether or not it should have done so (and believe me, some of us did), but saying it's bad at its job because it succeeded at something it set out to do is kind of silly.
2) Believe me, the high prices on augmentation, decks, etc, have nothing at all to do with "sacred cows" or "tradition." They came about because of a hotly contested formula, a brand new thing. Brand new. The prices are as low as they are because some of us fought tooth and nail, using prior equipment prices as a precedent, in order to get those prices cut at the 11th hour. There's nothing wrong with complaining, but please get your facts straight before you do.
-
I feel like a virtual mic needs to be dropped, because that post was the bomb, Critias. That makes me much more comfortable with my decision to start my group out with dice pools that some people on this board would have decried as many, many things, none of them good.
All in all, the game is about having fun, and I feel like the SR5 ruleset does a good job encouraging this no matter where your table is on the powerscale. Want to play gangers fighting over corners? There's ways to do that. Want to play the blackest of blackops, tacticool operatives? There's rules for that too (still no tanks, though! :D ).
-
Adjusting your expectations is a big part of any edition change, in any game. One of the goals of SR5 was to get people starting out at a little bit lower baseline, and leaving them more room to grow. You can disagree about whether or not it should have done so (and believe me, some of us did), but saying it's bad at its job because it succeeded at something it set out to do is kind of silly.
You don't weaken the baseline to 'give room to grow' you fix the problem of exponential advancement costs.
2) Believe me, the high prices on augmentation, decks, etc, have nothing at all to do with "sacred cows" or "tradition." They came about because of a hotly contested formula, a brand new thing. Brand new. The prices are as low as they are because some of us fought tooth and nail, using prior equipment prices as a precedent, in order to get those prices cut at the 11th hour. There's nothing wrong with complaining, but please get your facts straight before you do.
If that's the compromise reduction, then someone wanted to go far too overboard with the pricing as they're WAY out of line as it is.
-
Adjusting your expectations is a big part of any edition change, in any game. One of the goals of SR5 was to get people starting out at a little bit lower baseline, and leaving them more room to grow. You can disagree about whether or not it should have done so (and believe me, some of us did), but saying it's bad at its job because it succeeded at something it set out to do is kind of silly.
You don't weaken the baseline to 'give room to grow' you fix the problem of exponential advancement costs.
There are multiple ways to do things. In SR4, it was a problem to many people that players could start out effortlessly with 20+ die pools, with their attributes and skills (more problematically, skills) at about as high as they'd ever get. The decision was made to change that. It was changed.
You're free not to like the way it was changed, but it's important that you understand it was changed. It didn't happen by accident, and you can get a feel for the expected die pools and competency levels for SR5 by looking at the NPCs and, to a lesser extent, the archetypes presented in the core book. Doing that will show you that a 5 attribute and 5 skill is actually really pretty impressive and expert, not the baseline physical stats of some schmuck who just finished BCT. Look at the stats given for corporate security or police patrolmen. That's the realm of 3s-4s, not 5s-6s.
Again, adjusting your expectations is one of the key things to do when any game goes to a new edition. Ever. Understand that old die pools aren't the same as new die pools.
2) Believe me, the high prices on augmentation, decks, etc, have nothing at all to do with "sacred cows" or "tradition." They came about because of a hotly contested formula, a brand new thing. Brand new. The prices are as low as they are because some of us fought tooth and nail, using prior equipment prices as a precedent, in order to get those prices cut at the 11th hour. There's nothing wrong with complaining, but please get your facts straight before you do.
If that's the compromise reduction, then someone wanted to go far too overboard with the pricing as they're WAY out of line as it is.
NDA. There are things I'd like -- love -- to say, but can't. I said what I did just because it'd be nice if folks didn't trot out their absolutely baseless opinions as facts (like blaming the high prices on 'old timers').
Say you don't like things, sure, but don't take wild guesses and shots in the dark about why things are the way they are, and who's to blame, okay?
-
There are multiple ways to do things. In SR4, it was a problem to many people that players could start out effortlessly with 20+ die pools, with their attributes and skills (more problematically, skills) at about as high as they'd ever get. The decision was made to change that. It was changed.
That those who considered that a "problem" were the ones listened to is the basis of what's wrong. It wasn't a problem, and it never will be a problem. You don't punish everyone because of what those who "game the system" do.
To be honest, the trend of continually weakening starting characters and making advancement more and more glacial due to low rewards and exponential costs is a very disturbing one. And it's all because of the attitude of certain camps that somehow having a bit more 'power' "kills RP and thought".
Say you don't like things, sure, but don't take wild guesses and shots in the dark about why things are the way they are, and who's to blame, okay?
There's a reason I use the word "seemingly" a lot. :P
-
Actually, advancement (which we'll discuss later in the other thread) has issues with time in the opposite direction. Back in teh day, having games that ran 2, 3, or more years was totally normal. Not *everyone* did it, true, but that was the expectation. More modern design takes the 3rd ed approach, which is that a gaming group will generally end after a year, so tries to adjust to that rate.
One issue that you had in 4th was that you started at the finish line. When you can start with a skill at 6, and 6 is the highest you can ever go, what do you do with XP as you play? If you start play with the best deck for your Decker, what do you buy later?
The level treadmill is an entire design discussion in and of itself, and having a 'variable speed setting' helps with that tremendously. D&D had it, Shadowrun hasn't ... but that doesn't mean it never will. You already have options for low-end street games and high-powered worldbeater games, tweaking XP is another 'setting' that can be adjusted.
Trust me, and Crit, when we say that there's a wiiiide variety of opinions ... some battles you win, some you lose, and everybody has to give ground now and then. That's just how working with a team *is*, you know? Teh big thing is to never take it personal and always try to be professional.
-
That was only a problem with where the absolute maximum was set. Raising the maximum could have been enough, but advancement would still be far too slow. The costs of advancement still needed to come down.
With how things work these days, a game needs to be designed assuming that a game will last, at most, three or four months. Anything longer is a pipe dream. If you have a game last longer than that, you are very, VERY lucky. Real life happens and it's more important than any game, and when it strikes games die out.
-
The problem with arguing opinions as facts, such as what's wrong with the system and how it compares with previous systems, is that your opinions are wrong, or they would be fact. It doesn't matter how loudly someone decries the changes made, or compares them to the way things used to be (especially since a lot of these same people complained about they were at the time then too), the fact that not one but two of the source authors have gone on record (rather diplomatically, I might add) and tried to explain the reasoning why things are the way they are (this would be actual fact, see above) means that your expectations and the actual reality are not the same thing. It's ok to have an opinion. It's perfectly fine to express that opinion. But to state that opinion as if it were gospel truth makes the person talking look like a know-nothing loudmouth.
This is not aimed at any one person. I've just seen a lot of this behavior on this thread.
-
Nowhere near sufficient. Again, this is a perfect example of why you don't take system abusers into account when designing character generation.
There's no proof that this happened, and his is sliding pretty close to "some people are playing the game Wrong" territory.
-
I know you're all going to be shocked by this but I actually like the Srun 5e priority system and the characters it generates.
But then I run a persistent campaign running for over year now and no end in sight.
All of our runners get JoAT during chargen and diversify their skills cheaply post chargen. It's not a complete answer to your problems A4BG but it helps.
RE: military service how about a Quality that grants some additional skill points during chargen (not Karna).
For example:
Quality: Military Service
You went through basic training and a tour of duty (or similar) for the military of your choice
15 karma
grants either 3 skill group points OR 9 skill points.
(skill / group points are worth more than buying same via karma as they equally apply to higher rating buys)
-
Aside from the highly annoying lack of errata in general my biggest beef with the 5th edition rule set is the apparent bias towards human characters. I realize that humans are meant to be the baseline and I don't have a problem with that. But where they set the bar for humans makes fitting orcs, trolls and even dwarves under that same bar extremely restrictive in terms the choices you even have access to if you are making a non-human character. At the very least they could have smoothed out the power curve more as you went from priority A to priority E.
-
Aside from the highly annoying lack of errata in general my biggest beef with the 5th edition rule set is the apparent bias towards human characters. I realize that humans are meant to be the baseline and I don't have a problem with that. But where they set the bar for humans makes fitting orcs, trolls and even dwarves under that same bar extremely restrictive in terms the choices you even have access to if you are making a non-human character. At the very least they could have smoothed out the power curve more as you went from priority A to priority E.
Mothers of Metahumans agrees with you.
-
Of course, in first edition, it was A for metahuman (period!) and A for Magic (B if you were a Metahuman mage), so it's gotten better.
I think 2nd went with A trolls and Dwarves, B for Orks and Elves, but I'm not 100% on that ... it's been twenty years, after all. :) 3rd edition is when Metahumans started to fall out of the woodwork. When I was putting together my first proposal for Archetypes, I went through all of teh old books for tallymarks ... 1st and 2nd edition were something like 13 humans/3 Metahumans and 12 Humans/4 Metahumans, while 3rd flipped it to something like 12 Metahumans/4 Humans. (This isn't the exact number, but roughly correct.)
Common Metas is a modern thing.
-
Of course, in first edition, it was A for metahuman (period!) and A for Magic (B if you were a Metahuman mage), so it's gotten better.
I think 2nd went with A trolls and Dwarves, B for Orks and Elves, but I'm not 100% on that ... it's been twenty years, after all. :) 3rd edition is when Metahumans started to fall out of the woodwork. When I was putting together my first proposal for Archetypes, I went through all of teh old books for tallymarks ... 1st and 2nd edition were something like 13 humans/3 Metahumans and 12 Humans/4 Metahumans, while 3rd flipped it to something like 12 Metahumans/4 Humans. (This isn't the exact number, but roughly correct.)
Common Metas is a modern thing.
I played in 1st, bought the 2nd edition book but never got to play, then picked the game back up in 5th. One of the things I love about fifth is how viable it makes metahumans (compared to what I was used to). I'm not saying that the balance is perfect, just that how you view the balance may depend on where your reference point is.
-
Of course, in first edition, it was A for metahuman (period!) and A for Magic (B if you were a Metahuman mage), so it's gotten better.
I think 2nd went with A trolls and Dwarves, B for Orks and Elves, but I'm not 100% on that ... it's been twenty years, after all. :) 3rd edition is when Metahumans started to fall out of the woodwork. When I was putting together my first proposal for Archetypes, I went through all of teh old books for tallymarks ... 1st and 2nd edition were something like 13 humans/3 Metahumans and 12 Humans/4 Metahumans, while 3rd flipped it to something like 12 Metahumans/4 Humans. (This isn't the exact number, but roughly correct.)
Common Metas is a modern thing.
I played in 1st, bought the 2nd edition book but never got to play, then picked the game back up in 5th. One of the things I love about fifth is how viable it makes metahumans (compared to what I was used to). I'm not saying that the balance is perfect, just that how you view the balance may depend on where your reference point is.
In my experience metas are less viable than humans. The deficit is slight for elves, moderate for orks and dwarves and pretty severe IMHO for trolls. The issue being that the primary advantage to playing a meta is the superior stats. But in order to realize that advantage you taking a disadvantage in two areas, usually in skills and resources if you are looking at mundane vs. mundane or magic user vs. magic user.
If the power gradient from A to E in each category were more consistent this wouldn't be a thing at all. But the bonus you get for taking a high priority in the meta category doesn't balance out the bigger hit you have to take from having to select the lower priorities in other categories IMHO.
-
Humans have basically always been some of the best choices.
In 4th the first question to ask yourself in chargen was "what good mechanical reason do I have to NOT be a human or an ork" due to the cost/benefit for these metatypes. In 5e, replace "ork" with "elf" and you have the same situation.
-
Unless you're making a STR based fighter (Bows/Throwing Weapons/Unarmed/Melee Weapons in some combination) you're making a mechanically inferior choice to take anything other than Elf or Human.
But some people have a concept in mind and choose to take the mechanically inferior choice- and that's alright, as long as the character still contributes to team in whatever area they specialize in.
It's when players try things like B on a Troll and try being a Jack of All Trades that I want to bang my head...your DPs are too low to do the job and you have one edge...ummm, so what exactly are you doing?
-
Unless you're making a STR based fighter (Bows/Throwing Weapons/Unarmed/Melee Weapons in some combination) you're making a mechanically inferior choice to take anything other than Elf or Human.
But some people have a concept in mind and choose to take the mechanically inferior choice- and that's alright, as long as the character still contributes to team in whatever area they specialize in.
It's when players try things like B on a Troll and try being a Jack of All Trades that I want to bang my head...your DPs are too low to do the job and you have one edge...ummm, so what exactly are you doing?
Except that -- again -- what might be too low a dice pool in your game doesn't necessarily mean it's too low a dice pool in someone else's. Around many game tables, an 8 is a perfectly respectable "back up" die pool, and there are lots of things a Troll can get that in pretty handily, depending on how they spend their skills/attributes/cyberware. Maybe all the group needs is someone that's second-best in everything, and can float and support other team members.
Once people start talking about "mechanically inferior," it really makes me feel like we're moving into the realm of BadWrongFun and making assumptions about the challenge level around someone else's game table.
-
I never said that mechanically inferior means BadWrongFun...
and nowhere did I say you need DP X...
reread my comment and you'll notice I said taking the mechanically inferior character because it fits a concept is alright.
what isn't alright, is making a character whose DPs don't succeed more often than not.
and what DPs you need to suceed is based on two things: whether it's oppossed or unoppossed tests and what thresholds/DPs the GM normally throws out.
I have yet to run into a group where 8s cut it for oppossed tests but if thats your table, no problem. Some tables 12-14DP are the norm some higher.
But if everybody at the table is putting out 14 or 16 in their area of expertise and you aren't even putting up 10s than, yeah, you're doing it wrong.
-
It looks like I missed out on the bulk of the debate on the priority system making a return (along with the addition of limits), but I have to say that I was thrilled when I saw it make a comeback, and for one reason above all. The system of 4th edition was made of glass. It was a PS2. It would break if you looked at it the wrong way. I've had players stack spirit powers and abuse the restricted gear quality to the point that they were easily soloing runs. If the GM is cool with that, and all of the players are too, that's fine, but when a system is easy to break, it tends to push games in that direction. And that's where my big sigh of relief comes in - by making SR5 harder (even if only by a bit) it makes a dearth in system mastery within a single group less severe. I couldn't run a group with mixed experience in 4th edition. I tried a few times, and either the experienced players would outshine the new players so thoroughly that the new players quit, or I had to implement a ton of house rules that frustrated the crap out of the experienced players, and then they quit. I've got a mixed group now in my SR5 game and it's running a lot more smoothly. Our most experienced player still easily has the most effective character, but he isn't steeling the limelight to the point that others are frustrated, and that's a step in the right direction in my book.
-
Unless you're making a STR based fighter (Bows/Throwing Weapons/Unarmed/Melee Weapons in some combination) you're making a mechanically inferior choice to take anything other than Elf or Human.
But some people have a concept in mind and choose to take the mechanically inferior choice- and that's alright, as long as the character still contributes to team in whatever area they specialize in.
It's when players try things like B on a Troll and try being a Jack of All Trades that I want to bang my head...your DPs are too low to do the job and you have one edge...ummm, so what exactly are you doing?
Except that -- again -- what might be too low a dice pool in your game doesn't necessarily mean it's too low a dice pool in someone else's. Around many game tables, an 8 is a perfectly respectable "back up" die pool, and there are lots of things a Troll can get that in pretty handily, depending on how they spend their skills/attributes/cyberware. Maybe all the group needs is someone that's second-best in everything, and can float and support other team members.
Once people start talking about "mechanically inferior," it really makes me feel like we're moving into the realm of BadWrongFun and making assumptions about the challenge level around someone else's game table.
Considering people never tell us what their table expectations are on this forum, it's reasonable to assume higher challenges and steer them that way. It's easier to reverse course from high dice pools than show up at a game with 8 dice in a secondary pool when the rest of the past has 12+.
Really the issue with the troll is high cost for one decent stat (BOD) and one generally low-value/useful to specific builds only stat (STR).
-
Also with Trolls don't forget max cap on Agility is lower, as with mental stats. If your table allows Sum to 10 then you can make decent Trolls, otherwise they generally not worth the cost.
-
Trolls will come up in a bit. :)
As for magical attribute vs Cybergear, that one gets tricky as the magical cost has been changed several times itself. It also runs into a small problem in that buying with Karma (again, using 4 to 5) has a cost of 25, while buying with Magic has an angular cost ... half a point of Magic, but you also have to take into account the cost of buying the ability to *be* magical, and the level of Magic attribute itself, into the equasion. In effect, the cost of 25 Karma to raise the stat gets a cost break in magic, as it does in cyber, rather than serving as the baseline as in the example given above.
This stuff gets tricky. :) (And I dig that! The more mathematical-minded can really go to town on this sort of thing, but even the general population could look at the old system and see that boosting an attribute via magic was nowhere near as good as doing so with cyber. Adjsuting from the 4th ed model was key.)
I do hope that, overall, this is helping people a bit. I like having discussions, not arguements, and getting new viewpoints really helps that. EVen when ... no, ESPECIALLY when I disagree. Seeing *why* people make certain calls is enlightening and always helpful.
-
Boosting an attribute with magic permanently is still nowhere near as good as boosting it with cyber. Attribute Boost did help but really only for AGI and to a much lesser extent BOD (because soak is super cheap).
-
Or mages just quicken boost for all.
In all seriousness though, adepts option for increasing attributes is generally save up for deltaware and get muscle toner 3 and a superthyroid implant (adepts can get around the food intake increase via sustenance power) plus a few other bits all for a point of magic. Or use a force 4 Qi focus (or 1 power point) raise a physical stat by +1, which the focus can be worth it for the right builds (melee using it to effectively have max strength and agility). Hmm, looks like deltaware to me is the better option, especially stacked with the focus. Or (maybe) reduce the pp cost of the increase attributes.
-
I haven't played in a campaign yet where deltaware was easily obtained... except as rewards for particular runs... most characters I've seen have had to settle for mostly beta with maybe one piece of delta.
-
...the one downside of magical boosting/improvement is BGC. which affects DPs with said attribute.
My Missions adept recently did a job where one of the awards is one type of Beta implant at base price. She is planning to get Muscle Toner 2. which will give her an 8 AGI. for 0.28 ESS.which will leave her at a 5.11 Essence
Crikey, and here I thought I was one of the few who still remembers Bubba the Love Troll.