Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Cynical Paladin on <10-06-19/1530:54>
-
I have a question on the starting attributes available under priority creation. I've noticed that the points available for lower priorities is a lot less than in SR5; specifically only 8 points for priority D and 2 points for priority E. Under SR5 it was 14 points and 12 points respectively so its quite a big change, especially what you consider that the base value for all attributes is now 1.
My question is question is; is this intentional or is a a typo? Because if so then ALL characters as going to start out with lower stats across the board. Yes characters now have more starting karma so which could be used to off set the values but I'm not comfortable starting characters with that much karma. I'd prefer they earn it in game.
One last thing, it's a little unclear on how to raise Edge at character creation, can you use attribute points or can Edge only be raised with adjustment points?
-
The new values are quite intentional.
As for Edge: you cannot spend points from your attributes pick on Edge. You can only spend points from your metatype pick, and/or spend customization karma to improve Edge.
-
I'd be interested in hearing the rational for this decision. Priority A is the same as in 5th edition, 24 points. Yet all other priorities are lower and priority E is a mere 2 points. Is this even a valid choice at character creation? And if not why is it included in the first place? I'm not trying to be argumentative, in general I like how 6th edition is less complicated than 5th. I'm starting a game for a group who has no experience with Shadowrun and I never could have introduced them to 5th edition, the learning curve was just too steep. But I don't understand this change. A low priority in attributes should hurt but you should still be able create a viable character with it, and I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Am I missing something here?
-
Well I can't speak for the reasons, but here are my guesses based on my observations:
One of the not-so-loudly-advertised, yet apparently evident, goals was to give a minor tweak downwards in dice pool sizes. You can see this across the board in numerous examples: Armor doesn't add to soak. "Average" in a stat is now 2 instead of 3. You're capped out at +4 bonus dice to any skill test. All of these sorts of things still doesn't stop you from being able to get 16-20 dice in a skill or two, but it does make it less "necessary" for you to do so. 12 dice counts for a little bit more than it did in 5e, since the NPCs all tend to have a slight nerf to their dice pools.
As for the viability of Attributes E pick, that's a recurring topic of discussion with varying views. I won't go into all mine, other than just to say "yeah, but at least 9 times out of 10 you probably REALLY ought to consider rethinking that choice." You'll need to hit some perfect storm/trifecta of using a big metatype pick, requiring lots of gear, and not really minding having bad physical stats. A Dwarf Technomancer who spends all his time in VR, has expensive drones/vehicles, and maybe uses lots of cyberware to augment his stats is the kind of build that can get by with Attributes E.
-
It’s one of those how do you define viable things. With enough ware/magic you can pull together enough dice to be a functional character. But I doubt there is a case where you couldnt make the character better with different priorities.
-
Enemies default dicepools are down from before, since they start at 2+2 instead of 3+3. And dicepools overall are down due to far less modifiers. So it's not as broken as it sounds. And yes, any priority E hurts like hell.
@Stainless: RAW still says skills can only be boosted +4, not dicepools, so until errata completely override that section it's still unlimited dicepool modifiers. (Raw also calls specializations/expertises 'dice pool bonus'es.) Not that there's many ways to actually gain those bonus dice.
-
And yes, any priority E hurts like hell.
Except Magic E if you're playing a mundane character :)
-
Yet all other priorities are lower and priority E is a mere 2 points. Is this even a valid choice at character creation?
just search in the 6th core book pdf for "inferior prime runner" those are created with B; C; D; E; E
So if a GM wants to make someone with very low Attributes and Sills by purpose, thats the way to go.
-
Priority E in Attributes does look like a big hurdle... but it is mitigated by where your other priorities end up. For example, if you went Resources D, Magic C, Metatype B, and Skills A you could make a Dwarf mage that still has decent attributes and dice pools that are just fine for the things you need to do - especially if you lean on spells that boost stats.
-
Priority E in Attributes does look like a big hurdle... but it is mitigated by where your other priorities end up. For example, if you went Resources D, Magic C, Metatype B, and Skills A you could make a Dwarf mage that still has decent attributes and dice pools that are just fine for the things you need to do - especially if you lean on spells that boost stats.
You're not wrong, but to reiterate a sentiment upthread, swapping Resources and Attributes would probably have resulted in a better character. In addition to what you have above, the character idea just absolutely must be having some gear that necessitated the Higher-than-E Pick for resources. Maybe he just has to have a flash car? Or a great fake SIN? Or maybe this awesome focus he "found" that he intends to bind with his first post-chargen karma...
-
...swapping Resources and Attributes would probably have resulted in a better character.
I don't like to engage in debates of which character is "better" than another on the conceptual level.
-
...swapping Resources and Attributes would probably have resulted in a better character.
I don't like to engage in debates of which character is "better" than another on the conceptual level.
Well, if your wish-list of gear for the character is in the neighborhood of 8,000¥ (or near enough over that some karma can get you there) it is indeed "better" to not devote a bigger-than-necessary pick to Resources. But, maybe you do want to spend more than that. Lots of reasons why you might. Lots of reasons why you might not, too. Of course there's no one "better" character idea than another, but there absolutely ARE better priority arrays than others to realize a given character idea.
-
I agree that "better" is a loaded term.
How about "karma efficient" or "more optimized" instead, because there are definitely ways to play with the priority table to gain an objective karma advantage between two builds with an identical concept. See some of the threads I've created recently, especially where Tecumseh has commented; by swapping two priority picks I've been able to gain a straight up mechanical advantage in that one would have required less karma to build from the ground up using karma instead of priority.
-
I agree that "better" is a loaded term.
How about "karma efficient" or "more optimized" instead, because there are definitely ways to play with the priority table to gain an objective karma advantage between two builds with an identical concept. See some of the threads I've created recently, especially where Tecumseh has commented; by swapping two priority picks I've been able to gain a straight up mechanical advantage in that one would have required less karma to build from the ground up using karma instead of priority.
Well, if you wouldn't call that "better" and instead prefer "more optimized", I wouldn't disagree.
I empathize with the implicit argument that "less optimized" is still supposed to be fun and welcome. The flipside of the "more optimized" argument is that there's precious little reason to not go Priority A in Attributes, almost no matter what your concept is. And if everyone puts A in the same pick, it turns down the diversity of character builds.
-
@Stainless Steel Devil Rat
I only think the term "better" is loaded because what is better or worse can be largely subjective. Math on the other hand is objective, and "efficient" is less subjective than "better" in my opinion.
This is purely semantics, of course, and I wholly agree with your second statement.
One of the design goals in 6th Edition was to streamline and make "the rules move faster while still giving players lots of choices and tactics." I do not think the Priority System accomplishes this, because there are objectively more efficient ways to build the same character. This does not encourage choice, it penalizes those who either a) do not have the capacity to understand the nuances and/or the system mastery to make choices based on this fact, or b) artificially limits character advancement after character generation due to how advancements are calculated.
You should absolutely be able to build the character you want and play it however you like. But when you can approach the same build in two different ways and one objectively gives you more resources (be that nuyen, skills, or attributes) than the other, the system is not balanced nor streamlined.
While Karma Builds are definitely more complex, they are objectively more balanced because the balancing act of priority tables are not involved.
-
I can create builds that come with specific benefits that other builds cannot reach without being worse in some areas, even though after say another 60 karma and 100k nuyen another build could be superior. One can argue my build is less efficient, but that's only with the long-term in mind. Straight out of chargen the benefits I picked might actually have been benefits I desired due to my specific goals. Yes, karmawise I might be less efficient, but math might be objective, but when you start giving meaning to the numbers, objectiveness becomes the square root of -1.
And it should be noted, there are 120 ways of picking priorities and that's without involving metatype, qualities, gear and karma usage. It's literally impossible to NOT have cases where you can build in two ways and one is superior. That is not a flaw in the system, that's inherent in any system with choice.
As for Karma Builds: Choice paralysis is hostile to players. Arguing Priority is bad and Karma-gen is good is something that's not allowed within the same continent of the term 'objectively', by legal restraining order.
-
Thanks for the input, this more or less answers my question. At least now I know why the devs did what they did.
But, I have to say that i agree with Stainless Steel Devil Rat and ZeroSum regarding the new priority system. It's been my experience that if everyone is doing the same thing there is a problem somewhere. The new priority system as written shoehorns players toward choosing priority A for attributes. Not because they want their character to have good stats, but because all other choices are sub-optimal. I love the priority system for character creation, I love the way it forces you to make choices to get the character you want. But, if some choices are CLEARLY better than others in most or all instances then, its not really a choice is it?
So as a GM I'm going to have to make some adjustments, probable to a combination of 5th and 6th edition. Because, there are some things about the new system I like. Trolls. Yes they have slightly lower physical stats, but their mental stats are more of less in line with everyone else. This means that characters like a Troll Mage or a Troll Decker are much more viable than they were before. This, to me, is a change worth having.
-
I had the same concerns as you.
I even made a small Challenge to chummers here- they had to build an "okayish" runner with Attributes E.
One of them was actually Better than feared.... But it still led me to make some alterations to the priority system.
https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=30144.0
But its not only the attribute column thats somewhat skewed. Adjustment points with an A. Is also a vastly inferior choice.
Not to mention the special column had some issues as well.
If you are interested, here is my altered priority system. ( Nothing is set in Stone, so feedback is welcome).
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rJrxd_AvH
-
I'm honestly surprised people insist Attributes A is best, even as Social Street Sam I lean towards Skills A, Attributes B, Resources C. As full street sam, I just go Resources A, Attributes B, Skills C. I guess it's a matter of personal preference. I'm not interested in getting the most karma out of my choices, but want a viable character that's capable of what I want, and in many cases that's skills A because B simply doesn't cut it, while sometimes I just want to completely gear out from the start. Even Used Muscle Toner 4, Uscled Muscle Augmentation 4, Used Synaptic Boosters 3 is already all of Resources B spent, and at that point I haven't even started yet.
-
Attributes B is 16 points, so 3 in each stat (obviously most builds would shuffle those around). Certainly playable, but there aren't many builds that wouldn't be more mechanically efficient with A stats. 8 Attribute points are huge. With an Augmented Max attribute, a single skill point and a specialization gets you 13 Dice. Another 10 Karma gets that to 14 dice, and your second Specialization.
Even with Skills and Attributes costing the same Karma to raise, it's still more efficient to have high Attributes and low skills because of the lower costs of the first Skill Rank, Specializations and Expertise.
Going from 3 to 4 in an Attribute costs 20 Karma, gets you one dice in a few skills. Same 20 Karma gets you a Skill, two Specializations, and an Expertise. 4 to 5 in an Attribute is 25 Karma and that gets you the same Skill plus two Specializations and an Expertise, and you can open another skill at 1.
45 Karma, Attribute 3 to 5, +2 Dice all skills and related dice pools.
or
45 Karma, +1 to three skills, +4 to the two most common dice pools, +3 to the two next most common dice pools. Not a lot of Attributes with more than three Active skills.
Anyway, from a mechanical standpoint most builds are better with higher Attributes and picking up skill points with Karma. That math only changed a little bit between 5th and 6th. It's less loppysided than it was, but the math still strongly favors starting Attributes over starting Skills.
-
Resources can affect the Attributes vs Skills calculus, though*. Where Attribute of X + Skill of Y = Dice Pool of Z, buying some augmentations can compensate for a lower X without lowering Z. And if/when Active Skillwires become a thing again in 6we, then you can just flat out buy skills with nuyen/essence, as well. But just with the CRB you can only buy "attribute points" with nuyen and essence, but not skills.
*Same is also true for Magicians with Adept Powers and/or Increase Attribute spell...
-
Yeah A attributes has two primary draws imo. 1 it is the most cost effective method. 2. Due to their being 8 stats without A you are seriously dumping stats to excel in your specialty.
And ware doesn’t really change that. 6 agility may be great for a normal but not for a street sam so base 2+4 just isn’t the same as base 6+4. All ware does is shift the numbers of what a priority and dump stat is considered.
I’d happily take B if b didn’t give me actively bad stats for most builds. You can wrangle B or C to working with the right race priority but now you are using 2 columns just to get what one could have. To just get to where A attributes is with b you’d need c race and devote almost al of your racial priorities to cover your stats.
-
Obviously 2+4 is inferior to 6+4... but if you got more skill points because you picked a lower attribute priority, you can dip into resources and 4(6)+6 is better still.
-
Resources can affect the Attributes vs Skills calculus, though*. Where Attribute of X + Skill of Y = Dice Pool of Z, buying some augmentations can compensate for a lower X without lowering Z. And if/when Active Skillwires become a thing again in 6we, then you can just flat out buy skills with nuyen/essence, as well. But just with the CRB you can only buy "attribute points" with nuyen and essence, but not skills.
*Same is also true for Magicians with Adept Powers and/or Increase Attribute spell...
I think the only build that comes out "ahead" is the Matrix all Logic, stay in the Van build. Engineering, Biotech, ect, ect... one Attribute, many skills based on that Attribute. And I think Logic is the only Attribute with enough skills to pull it off. I think in every other case you're mathematically more karma efficient putting a higher priority in Attributes than skills. My case study is posted in the Support Mage build. Magic, Matrix, and Social, tried that build multiple ways, Attributes A was the most dice for the things I wanted.
Skillwires may change that. And how sad is it that until this thread I didn't realize they weren't in 6th edition CRB. They've been such a niche thing in every edition I didn't even notice they weren't in 6th. Anyway, if Skillwires somehow turn out more efficient than 19 Reflex Recorders I'll be pleasantly surprised. (yes I know you can't take Reflex Recorders for 19 skills...)
-
Well Skillwires ARE in the CRB... but Active Skillwires (the ones that have an unchanging, preprogrammed skill) aren't yet.
-
While Karma Builds are definitely more complex, they are objectively more balanced because the balancing act of priority tables are not involved.
That’s why I’ve always liked the “Sum to 10” system. It seemed a good compromise between the simplicity of the Priority Chart and the complexity of Karma Points.
-
While Karma Builds are definitely more complex, they are objectively more balanced because the balancing act of priority tables are not involved.
That’s why I’ve always liked the “Sum to 10” system. It seemed a good compromise between the simplicity of the Priority Chart and the complexity of Karma Points.
The thing with any of the priority systems including sum to 10 is it emphasizes literal min max builds. Whether that is good or bad is up to the group. But due to scaling karma costs(I would have preferred flat) it pushes you to max out what you can and leave everything else at a minimum since it’s relatively cheap to boost a 1 to a 3 as opposed as 4 to a 6.
People focus on the priority and points and how it doesn’t jive with karma scaling positing it should start out using karma. But, if karma expenditures were flat like the points in priority we wouldn’t have that disconnect. And mechanically a die is a die is a die. Whether it’s my 6th die in agility or my 3rd it’s still just one die. So scaling costs are a bit weird mechanically. They do help represent the idea that it’s easy to grow from nothing to basic levels but hard to master most subjects. A person can get competent in a month in many subjects but it can take years and years to master the same thing.
So it’s a question of math balance vs realism on the karma side.