Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: DragginSPADE on <04-17-16/1234:03>
-
So I haven't really been playing tabletop for the past 15 years (good grief where does the time go?) and am hoping to get back into Shadowrun. I've read most of the SR4 and SR5 books by now but I haven't had a chance to PLAY either of them. Also I wasn't really paying attention to the forums when edition changeovers happened.
So I'm curious: To those who've played and/or GM'd BOTH SR4 and SR5, which do you prefer? Why? Even if you strongly prefer one, is there an area the other version handled better? Inquiring lapsed vets want to know. :)
-
There are pros and cons to both, in my opinion.
SR4 definitely has a more fleshed out ruleset with significantly more details, rules, gear, and so on. The downside is that some of those rules are ineffective, complicated, or just downright broken.
SR5 on the other hand is still being expanded upon, so a lot of the depth of the previous edition(s) is currently missing. I also personally dislike some of the directions the writers took with 5th, specifically the way the Matrix got less scientific and more mystical and how tech in general has been treated with regards to interaction with magic. Mechanically speaking, though, SR5 is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned; most of the rules are streamlined so it's easier to get into the game, but make no mistake, it's still a very complicated game system at least compared to a lot of other systems.
In terms of content I feel SR4 has a definitive edge, as the sourcebooks tended to be more clearly separated between rules and fiction; SR5 has some editing problems and can't seem to quite make up its mind in terms of what type of content goes into books. That's my subjective opinion, of course.
Overall, I actually prefer some of the more complex systems in SR4, especially the Matrix rules believe it or not, but the rest of the rule set from SR5 is really solid as long as you're willing to make some table decisions. As mentioned, SR5 has some editing issues so you'll have to interpret some rules in some cases, so as long as you go in expecting that you should be good.
If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd prefer to use SR5, personally. That being said, I GM an SR5 game with several pages worth of house rules, so I guess my actual preference would be a hybrid approach :)
-
I prefer 5th.
But 4th has a lot going for it:
- It is complete
- There are a lot more customization options and complexity
- There are arguably more options (play a drake or free spirit)
-
There are pros and cons to both, in my opinion.
SR4 definitely has a more fleshed out ruleset with significantly more details, rules, gear, and so on. The downside is that some of those rules are ineffective, complicated, or just downright broken.
SR5 on the other hand is still being expanded upon, so a lot of the depth of the previous edition(s) is currently missing. I also personally dislike some of the directions the writers took with 5th, specifically the way the Matrix got less scientific and more mystical and how tech in general has been treated with regards to interaction with magic. Mechanically speaking, though, SR5 is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned; most of the rules are streamlined so it's easier to get into the game, but make no mistake, it's still a very complicated game system at least compared to a lot of other systems.
In terms of content I feel SR4 has a definitive edge, as the sourcebooks tended to be more clearly separated between rules and fiction; SR5 has some editing problems and can't seem to quite make up its mind in terms of what type of content goes into books. That's my subjective opinion, of course.
Overall, I actually prefer some of the more complex systems in SR4, especially the Matrix rules believe it or not, but the rest of the rule set from SR5 is really solid as long as you're willing to make some table decisions. As mentioned, SR5 has some editing issues so you'll have to interpret some rules in some cases, so as long as you go in expecting that you should be good.
If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd prefer to use SR5, personally. That being said, I GM an SR5 game with several pages worth of house rules, so I guess my actual preference would be a hybrid approach :)
Out of curiosity, what are some of the SR4 rules you consider to be broken or ineffective?
And I understand what you mean about the separation of rules and fiction in SR5. On my first couple reads I thought the game was horribly broken and missing a bunch of fundamentals. Then later I found a lot of them buried in paragraphs that looked like fluff. Still some stuff that looks incomplete, particularly in magic so that's why I'm asking how folks who've actually played the games felt they shook out.
On a subject of particular interest to me, the ritual magic rules in SR5. I like the concept of expanding their use in the game and putting in ritual only spells, but the way they're written... they either seem to be taking a previously innate magician ability and making you now spend a starting spell pick to get them (wards, watchers) or very vague and/or underpowered. (Most other rituals.) Has anybody used ritual magic in your games? How did that go?
One thing I learned a long time ago is that how a game reads and how it plays can be two very different thing, and I'm very curious to hear what actual experiences have been like. ;D
-
Ritual magic is most often used by NPCs in my games. For PC use it's usually to time consuming (although the minion rituals are really neat)
If you have a group that builds for it or a single mage with the Greater Ritual Metamagic it can become a really effective tool.
And yes: Lack of consistent terminology and fluff-crunch mix up is the main problem this edition has.
-
Out of curiosity, what are some of the SR4 rules you consider to be broken or ineffective?
Technomancer stealth in SR4 is broken beyond belief; threading in general can be extremely powerful, but technomancers threading high Level stealth are nigh undetectable by pretty much any node they choose to enter. Oh, and pornomancers (don't ask, but it's a thing...).
The Matrix in general, but not so much broken as it is complex. It's got a steep learning curve for everyone involved, and though it is easier than previous editions it is still harder than 5th (at least in terms of complexity; 5th still has it's share of issues with the Matrix...).
Summoning, which is just as broken in 5th unless the GM takes steps to address it (i.e. by using Edge for the spirits opposed test if of sufficient Force).
Chase combat, which again is also broken in SR5, and vehicle speeds in general.
All in all, there's a bunch of stuff that's mechanically unbalanced, and a few things that are just mechanically broken (i.e. barely works within the confines of the setting). But, and I think this is important enough for emphasis: nothing is so broken that it cannot be fixed with houserules. You just have to be willing to put in the effort is all, and that's the same across the board.
And I understand what you mean about the separation of rules and fiction in SR5. On my first couple reads I thought the game was horribly broken and missing a bunch of fundamentals. Then later I found a lot of them buried in paragraphs that looked like fluff. Still some stuff that looks incomplete, particularly in magic so that's why I'm asking how folks who've actually played the games felt they shook out.
Yeah, Street Grimoire got a lukewarm reception for good reason. I think it is my least favourite book of SR5 so far, followed closely by Data Trails, because they were both poorly edited (i.e. had sections of fiction and rules interspersed) and had game mechanics that were not particularly well implemented). A cardinal sin as far as I'm concerned is the utter lack of a proper table of contents, especially so when mechanics and fiction isn't properly separated making it even more time consuming to cross reference. It's not all bad, though, and it's definitely getting better. Run & Gun, Run Faster, Hard Targets, and Rigger 5.0 were all steps up as far as I'm concerned, though they all have their odd rules and editing issues. Still, I very much enjoy 5th Edition for what it is, so I hope you won't get too disparaged by what I consider a mere annoyance as opposed to an actual problem.
On a subject of particular interest to me, the ritual magic rules in SR5. I like the concept of expanding their use in the game and putting in ritual only spells, but the way they're written... they either seem to be taking a previously innate magician ability and making you now spend a starting spell pick to get them (wards, watchers) or very vague and/or underpowered. (Most other rituals.) Has anybody used ritual magic in your games? How did that go?
We tried, but it's no good if you've only got two magicians, really. It definitely seems like ritual magic, like blood magic, is a tool best left up to the GM for flavor. The effort it takes compared to the returns just isn't worth it in an average game session, and ritual magic can be quite time consuming in terms of in-game time which is something the GM has to plan for.
One thing I learned a long time ago is that how a game reads and how it plays can be two very different thing, and I'm very curious to hear what actual experiences have been like. ;D
Unfortunately, where Ritual Magic is concerned you read it right :)
Still, as far as I'm concerned you can't really go wrong with either edition of the game, to wrap back around. SR5 plays a little smoother so I'd honestly go for the later edition, warts and all, and if you need any gear from previous editions it's almost all simple enough to convert. As mentioned, we've got a house rule document that is pages upon pages and some of that is gear conversions, though most of it is rules clarifications and the like. So, jump right in! :)
-
SR5, unfortunately, has some crippling flaws. First is that it is riddled with unfun nerfs and hindrances - higher background counts, more inescapable wireless combined with greater consequences for being hacked, security tally for deckers - constant penalties and things to worry about, rather than just being allowed to relax and play your character. Secondly, and more importantly, the editing is horrendous at the line developer level. Ill-thought out, vague, or contradictory rules and fluff, a lot of it apparently written by people with no clue as to how the Shadowrun universe works; cut-and-paste-from-SR4 bits with important parts missing; and botched rules snippets/misaligned tables. And I agree that important rules are often buried in the fluff.
SR5 isn't even more available than the previous edition - a lot of books can only be found offered at exorbitant prices. Despite my gripes about SR5, I am still getting the core books, since my SR interactions are basically online right now, and most people seem to have switched over to the new edition. So I was actually a potential customer, ready to buy Chrome Flesh, but it was only offered by third-party sellers at the aforementioned exorbitant prices. So when a used copy for about $25 suddenly popped up, I snatched it right up. So Catalyst lost a sale, because I literally could not get a new copy (I'm just not a .pdf guy - I like hard copies).
So if it is just you and your friends, I would recommend SR4, which is not without its flaws, but has generally much clearer rules with errata, smoother gameplay, and more of a fun, less constrained feel.
-
Thanks for the responses so far everyone. Particularly on the comments about the matrix... I never got too far into those rules during my time and I've kinda skimmed over them again reading the new editions. ;D
So a couple more follow up questions. My favorite flavor of Shadowrun has always been heavy on the magic. So if you were considering only the core rule set (skills, combat, etc) and the magic and more or less disregarding vehicle combat and the matrix, would that change whether you prefer SR4 or 5?
As for the core combat rules themselves, assuming a fairly basic set (pistols and maybe a SMG or two, close range but not point blank, cover available for smart runners, good but not stratospheric skills among those involved) does the combat lethality vary much between the systems? How quickly does lethality change as you start scaling up equipment/skills in the editions?
-
In regards to the magic rules.....a bit of both editions actually.
The good that 5th ed. contributed to the magic rules in my opinion is mostly on the idea plane as many actual rules in 5th ed. have issues, but alot can be fixed with house rules.
- I like the reagents use
- i like the expanded ritual magic
- i like the idea of preparations, but house ruling is needed to make them viable
- The metamagical schools is another fine Development
- I really like that indirect combat spells are now actually something you use, since drain isn't insane anymore
- I think direct combat spells needed to be nerfed as they did, but maybe not so much as they actually did.
With 4th. ed. you also have some good rules that are better than what 5th ed. supplied
- Artificing rules are way better in 4th ed.
- 4th. ed. actually have spell creation rules, so use those but you need to calculate a drain code for indirect combat spells
- Quick resolution rules for astral quests actually exist
So in essence a combination of rules from 5th and 4th editions, eventhough it is annoying that 5th edition has so many issues, fortunately translating rules from 4th to 5th isn't that complicated.
-
Rosa
For what it's worth, we actually tried messing around with Direct Combat Spells at our table to make them more attractive. Unfortunately, even relatively minor tweaks quickly made them very powerful again.
We first tried upping the DV to Net Hits + (Force/2), rounded down. So a Force 6 spell could result in as much as 9DV, resisted purely by Body or Willpower. However, This meant that the magician could overcast a Force 8 Stunbolt for up to 12DV, effectively knocking out pretty much any NPC we were playing at the time, for a relatively moderate 5 Drain DV (even less if, as our Magician quickly realized, a fetish was used).
We then made it a flat +2 DV and the same kind of problem was present; it still only took 2 spells at relatively moderate force to knock out pretty much any opponent with Force 6 spells potentially dealing 8 DV.
Ultimately, we removed all of our changes in favour of the then-newly released Witness My Hate quality from Run Faster (of all places...), which gives a magician the option to trade +2DV for a +2 drain value. I feel this gives the proper balance of risk vs reward; got a cybered up troll bearing down on you with a chainsaw? Break out the stunbolt at high Force and knock him on his ass, but risk bloodying your own nose in the process. A Force 10 Stunbolt would be 9 Drain, but could deal up to 12DV, which should be enough to take out most low-willpower opponents, but at the risk of giving the spellcaster a serious headache.
Of course, you're highly dependent on a lot of net hits with direct combat spells, and counterspelling can throw a real wrench in the works for magicians relying to heavily on such spells.
-
I agree that it seems like it's either too much or too Little with the direct combat spells. The Witness my hate option seems ok though. Ofc. i can "just" use some reagents and transform my force 1 manabolt into a force 15 manabolt if i choose to, or just an edge point to remove the limits on the spellcasting test, so plenty of ways to fire off that killer manabolt when you need it.
-
That's one thing that confused me in SR5... why they nerfed direct damage spells. If they were powerful in SR4 that wasn't anything NEW. Direct damage combat spells have been deadly in SR since SR1.
I mean, this is Shadowrun... the sun rises in the east, the sky is a pollution grey color, politicians are corrupt (moreso than the real world) and direct damage spells are deadly. :)
To me, manabolts suddenly becoming weak is a bigger paradigm change than the matrix protocols changing yet again. There should be a boatload of researchers around the world frantically scrambling to figure out why the fundamentals of magic changed so suddenly in 2075.
-
To be fair, direct damage spells were not just deadly, they were ridiculously deadly.
And to my mind, a far greater change was the sudden disappearance of grounding. No longer could magicians astrally project and send a fireball up your ass from the relative safety of his command bunker.
I think Direct combat spells needed a nerf, badly, and they got it.
-
To be fair, direct damage spells were not just deadly, they were ridiculously deadly.
And to my mind, a far greater change was the sudden disappearance of grounding. No longer could magicians astrally project and send a fireball up your ass from the relative safety of his command bunker.
Fair enough. I wonder how much of this being a problem is from the removal of the Spell Pool. In SR3 mana bolts were deadly... when the casting was enhanced with spell pool dice. But if the magician did that he didn't have much to defend with against incoming spells until his next turn. In SR4-5 you can cast at full effect and still have all your Counterspelling dice afterwards.
As for shifts in the manasphere, yup, grounding vanishing was interesting. I like how they talked about it in Shadowrun 2050. But no mention of how casting spells while Astrally Projecting used to cause physical drain regardless, while now apparently you can cast away on the astral with no problems. Makes me wonder why mages bother to learn Astral Combat. ;)
-
Yeah, Astral Combat is just horribly unbalanced in favour of everything except other magicians. I don't think we've had it come up once at our table, because we all kind of looked at it and went "Whut? Screw that..."
-
If you prefer magic and combat, then 5th will most likely be the one you will prefer in the long run. Yeah, direct spells to a major hit, but between Edge, Witness my Hate, and reagents you can raise the damage significantly. Sadly, the whole Artificing group is borked.
For combat, only one armor type (2 technically if you add in hardened) for players. You only get one attack per pass (can have multiple if you split your attack pool to attack multiple targets). This with overall damage increase (especially to melee weapons) has made in some ways combat deadlier than previous editions. One punch Adept builds have sadly taken a major hit, with Critical Strike not having ranks (but can be applied to any melee weapon skill) so only +1 to dv. Like pervious versions, bio-adepts are still the best setup in the long run. While skills now go to 12(13 with PQ) I have heard dice pools are generally not as big, due to bonus dice being rarer.
4th doesn't have Deckers, and that shit ain't right. Sadly, Data Trails brought back comlink hacking (via upgrades) and that is sad. Also, the matrix needs some love, fluff and some rules wise, and most decks are way to damn expensive. Your Runners will get paid better to hunt Deckers and hawk their decks.
Did I mention pay amounts (both Nueyen and Karma) are way borked? No, they are, but this can be fixed during play. By borked, I mean, it generally is to low for costs of upgrading gear, skills, or stats.
Oh, and Technomancers need lots of love and house rules, to be effective.
-
Oh yeah, Technomancers are horrible in 5th. I started my last campaign in 2070, though, so we just blanket ignored technomancers as player characters.
And I think Rift is spot on with regards to lethality; in SR4 I don't think I ever had a player die, or even come close to dying. In SR5, especially during the early days when we weren't quite accustomed to the lethality level, I nearly TPKd my table on several occasions, and a few characters have burned edge to stay alive during a session.
Higher damage values for all weapons coupled with somewhat lower AV increases means that hits can now hurt much more than they did in SR4.
And while unarmed adepts took a pounding, high-strength melee characters have never been better; between all the modifiers to both attackers and defenders in melee, along with active defenses and martial arts, it's no longer a possible death sentence being an unarmed combatant.
Run & Gun has some interesting optional rules to make combat even more deadly, by the way, like the one where if your defensive dice pool is reduced below zero you take more damage, or where armor becomes a negative dice pool and DV just gets straight up taken.
Overall, I'd say there's a bigger chance of an "oops, I just killed a player character" in SR5 than there was in SR4, but that's why players have Edge, right? :D
-
Hmm, good to know. I would have thought at first reading that 4th was the more lethal system due to the defender only rolling reaction vs ranged attacks, vs two attributes in 5th. But as I said, things often work out differently in play vs expectations from reading the book. ;)
Another follow up: What if anything breaks each system? I've heard there are complaints about Grenades in 5th, are they really that bad? Anything else that breaks/strains either system? What about once you start getting to the higher skill levels?
Thanks to all who have responded so far, this is very interesting to me.
-
Run & Gun introduced a Run For Your Life action that may get you out of the way of grenades (only thrown ones, not ones fired with a grenade launcher) and/or area of attack spells. But that's the only option, pretty much, and damage can get real ugly if you factor in explosive effects bouncing off walls, aka "chunky salsa" rules.
In terms of something breaking both systems, I can't really think of anything to be honest, but I also have no problem house ruling something that gets too cheesy. Like the Super Squirt gun loaded with DMSO and Kamikaze...
-
Hmm, older editions of Shadowrun had the Squirt pistol and DMSO too. And in 12 years of GMing/playing Shadowrun I don't think I EVER saw a player use one. I think we used Narcojet Rifles/Pistols on occasion for runs that really needed to stay quiet.
-
I had one guy ask, and I immediately banned it. SR5 has pretty severe drug overdose rules:
Whenever you take a substance while you’re already on that substance or one that has a shared effect (like the way cram and novacoke both affect Reaction), you take Stun damage with a DV equal to the sum of the Addiction Ratings of the overlapping drugs, resisted with Body + Willpower.
In other words, hit someone with two doses of Kamikaze and they're taking 18S DV with nothing but Body + Willpower...
-
I had one guy ask, and I immediately banned it. SR5 has sever drug overdose rules:
Whenever you take a substance while you’re already on that substance or one that has a shared effect (like the way cram and novacoke both affect Reaction), you take Stun damage with a DV equal to the sum of the Addiction Ratings of the overlapping drugs, resisted with Body + Willpower.
In other words, hit someone with two doses of Kamikaze and they're taking 18S DV with nothing but Body + Willpower...
.......wow.
Yeah, if someone tried to weaponize addiction ratings like that at my table I might have to hit them over the head with the rulebook.
-
Considering he could simply use Narcojet in the SS for 2 times 15S Damage, immediate effect with the first hit and half the cost for the DMSO payload, the Kamikaze-Squirt sounds more like a gimmick option than something broken to me.
Plus, you avoid that awkward situation where your first Kamikaze-DMSO hits and the following one misses your now heavily boosted opponent.
-
Narcoject has an onset time, unlike drugs, which take effect immediately. Even with an "Immediate" effect, Narcoject doesn't actually take effect until the end of the combat turn.
And your argument that Narcoject in the Super Squirt deals 15 damage is yet another reason why I just banned the whole weapon ;)
-
Narcoject has an onset time, unlike drugs, which take effect immediately. Even with an "Immediate" effect, Narcoject doesn't actually take effect until the end of the combat turn.
And your argument that Narcoject in the Super Squirt deals 15 damage is yet another reason why I just banned the whole weapon ;)
I thought drugs with a timing of "Immediate" still took effect at the end of the turn also? The core book says that except as noted below they use the same rules as toxins, etc. And I don't see anything modifying their speed.
Either way you're right, that's a stupidly powerful weapon. The only thing balancing it that I can see is that it requires an Exotic Ranged Weapon skill.
-
Even the exotic skill needed doesn't balance it. By comparison, the Parashield pistol and rifle have nothing going for them, as their vectors require injection toxins and 3 net hits against an armored target. The Super Squirt just needs to hit. It's just a badly balanced weapon, so we banned it and allowed the Parashield pistol and rifle to be used with their respective firearms skills instead, with the limitation that you can only weaponize toxins, not drugs.
-
Ah yeah, immediate with drugs in SR 5 isn't really immediate.
Still, you have at least one INI pass of your enemy reacting to your fire in both cases and I'd rather have to face that without him getting a ridiculous statboost before.
On the Topic of banning:
Supersquirt+external Smartgun+custom grip is a mere 1250 Nuyen.
One shot of DMSO Narcojet costs 82 Nuyen.
Pretty cheap for a 6 ACC 15S HM (R) Pistol that basically ignores all armor.
Only plus for the Parashieldrifle is sniper vs light pistol ranges.
This can easily be relevant.
The parapistol however...
And people did complain about stick and shock in 4e :D
(Rightfully so, it's one of the Editions stinkers, to get back on Topic).
-
Good call on the drug timing; for some reason I thought drugs took effect when taken, not end of combat turn like toxins. Coolio. Still doesn't make me change my mind on the Super Squirt :)
-
And this crap is why I use full body armor with chem seal, then murder the fool with the squirt gun (by shoving it down his throat).
And how do SnS suck? You lose 2 points of damage, but it become stun and electric. Ap becomes -5, only require a grazing hit (by some interpretations), and if damage goes through add -5 initiative and -1 to all dice pools then add in wound modifiers.
And for the squirt gun, I would let hits add to damage (don't think you are just clarifying).
For cheap knock outs I would rather use a Remington Suppressor with a laser sight with SnS. ACC 6(7) DV 5S(E) AP -5 15 round "clip" and SA/BF comes with a suppressor (part of the cost) for around 800 and only restricted.
Edit: Thanks Herr Brackhaus for the mistakes on my part, so those were corrected.
-
Stick 'n Shock AP does not stack with weapon AP, it replaces it as per the SnS entry.
-
That is what I had originally thought, but swear I read somewhere (maybe on the forums) something/someone's saying otherwise, will correct in original post. Thanks!
-
It's funny how the overpowered gear changes with editions. In SR2-3 I seem to recall every samurai and his mother having Image Magnification 3 cybereyes, because it let them do all their shooting at short range TNs for a very minor cost. (No Take Aim actions required to use image mag back then.) Between that, smartgun links (-2 to target numbers) and recoil suppressors, the first several things were usually good and dead by the time my mage got around to casting his manabolt or sleep spell.
So back to topic, lots of good information so far. Anything else I should know about SR4 vs SR5 that hasn't been mentioned so far? Any "Gotchas" that might not be apparent when reading the books?
-
SR5 is curious, power-wise. A lot of things seem more powerful than they were in SR4, but only on a flat scale. SR5 characters are actually less powerful compared to the rest of the world. Someone starting out with a skill of 6 or 7 is still good, but is nowhere near the best in the world any longer. One thing that remains the same is that with such wide-open character creation systems, you can make characters of widely varying effectiveness. And despite all of the nerfs, you can make powerful builds. Even with the core book alone, you can start out with 12 power points, 12 Agility, etc.
-
You can initiate at character generation, most Power Points you can get is 7 magic = 7 Power Points (via PQ), + ~ .5 via mentor spirit, and usually .75 via adept way. This equals 8.25 pp. So how did you get to 12?
-
7 Magic with the exceptional Attribute quality, the Raven mentor spirit (1.5 PP worth of bonus powers), and then buying/bonding 14 total points' worth of qi foci (three rating: 4 and one rating: 2, or two rating: 4 and two rating: 3) for another 3.5 PP worth of adept powers (total force of all foci that can be bound at character creation is Magic x 2).
You want to be careful not to have too many active at once because of possible foci addiction, but it is fairly easy to divvy up the foci by purpose, so you have, for example, one set with combat sense and danger sense for combat, and another set with improved gymnasics and freefall for rooftop running. Background count (if you get Street Grimoire) is the real reason I would not want so many qi foci. This is more of a "How much can I get for this one thing?" conceptual build than a character for actual play.
-
I think my Post got misinterpreted.
SnS are stinkers in 4e because they were stupidly effective to a point where they had been the no-brainer option for every use case since they took down targets faster than lethal ammo.
-
@ Dualist_D: I must have. It seemed like you were saying they sucked in 5th.
@Glyph: Fair enough, but honestly don't view Qi foci as actual Power Points. Powers yes, but saying a starting adept has 14 Power Points is misleading.