Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: penllawen on <02-19-20/0631:52>
-
Following an idle chat with u/D4rvill about how SR has changed through the years, I made a doc that walks you through an entire ranged combat resolution in SR 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e20A, 5e, and 6e (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU/edit#). (I linked to this earlier in the latest "armour in SR6 is too weak / just right" flamewar thread, but I'd like to think it deserves a thread of its own.)
If you're interested in how SR has changed, or you've only played later editions and never seen just how different 1e-3e were, you might find this neat. Maybe. I hope.
(I'm linking the doc because the formatting is too complex to make work as a direct post. Sorry. Also, it might look like ass on mobile, as I had to tell Google Docs to make it A3/landscape to get the width I needed. More sorry.)
If people like this, I might do Manabolt next.
-
Following an idle chat with u/D4rvill about how SR has changed through the years, I made a doc that walks you through an entire ranged combat resolution in SR 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e20A, 5e, and 6e (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU/edit#). (I linked to this earlier in the latest "armour in SR6 is too weak / just right" flamewar thread, but I'd like to think it deserves a thread of its own.)
If you're interested in how SR has changed, or you've only played later editions and never seen just how different 1e-3e were, you might find this neat. Maybe. I hope.
(I'm linking the doc because the formatting is too complex to make work as a direct post. Sorry. Also, it might look like ass on mobile, as I had to tell Google Docs to make it A3/landscape to get the width I needed. More sorry.)
If people like this, I might do Manabolt next.
Very cool to see this laid out side by side for comparison ... boy do I miss combat pool
-
I miss TNs.
-
I've added the same comparison but for mana bolt to the doc.
Gosh. Unless I've misunderstood some rules, mana bolt got nerfed quite hard in 5e, when its base damage changed from (force+net hits) to just (net hits.) It then got nerfed further in 6e, when the resistance test for it switched from (willpower) to (willpower+intuition.)
-
I can scarcely believe (adding armor to DR) is correct for a direct combat spell. Pg 132 of the 6e CRB seems quite insistent, however.
Note that the way direct spells work, in-universe, took some fundamental changes in 6we.
Every edition prior: an area direct spell would only affect potential targets in that area if there was LOS from the caster, rather than the center of that area. For example, if you throw a manaball into a room, but a SecMook is up against the wall in between you and you can't see him, then he's unaffected by that manaball even if the spell is cast at a point literally right next to him.
In 6we: an area direct spell "comes from" the center of the area now, instead of from the caster. The wall between the SecMook and the caster no longer shields him. Basically, direct and indirect spells now work the same way, other than how their dodge pools are constructed.
And since there's now so little difference between direct and indirect spells, it kind of makes sense that armor boosts work for both.
-
Nope, you lost me. Is this right?
(1) I’m hit with a direct combat spell. Armour helps my DR but not my resistance roll.
(2) I’m hit with an indirect combat spell. Armour helps my DR and my resistance roll.
That first one feels really wrong. Surely either armour contributes to DR and resistance; or it effects neither. Why would it help your DR but be bypassed by the spell’s damaging effects?
-
You're wasting your breath Pen.
6e makes no sense, it's a completely abstracted set of mechanics that bear no relation to reality in any sense.
4lb pixie hits as hard as a 400lb troll.
Bikini = Armored Suit +/- 1/3 point of damage.
Those two items alone beggar belief.
-
Love the fact that in your example, in 6e, casting spells is a health pool net negative :P
When casting a spell hurts you more then the target, why cast spells???
And considering your examples are fairly "run of the mill"....
Yea... not looking good...
-
While that 6e manabolt is pretty lolsy out the gate, progression deeply favors the mage, just like other editions. The defender's body and willpower is going to hit a dicepool cap in the range of 12-18 absolute maximum, while the mage's magic attribute and foci rating have unlimited potential. Not to mention drain becomes laughable quickly with centering, centering foci, and increased attribute.
-
Unless I've misunderstood some rules, mana bolt got nerfed quite hard in 5e, when its base damage changed from (force+net hits) to just (net hits.)
One player's nerf is another player's right-sizing.
Stunbolt was the bigger problem in 4E, in the sense that it was the only combat spell you needed most of the time. Low drain, targets a weak attribute, can affect astral entities, can easily be overcast, and so on. An F9 stunbolt doing base 9S and was undodgeable (you could soak, but this usually pit a casting pool of 12-15 vs. a soak pool of 3-6) was unbalanced compared to the other options available. You didn't even need the extra hits to increase damage; you could just drop them. 90% of the time you'd use stunbolt, and the other 10% of the time you were using lightning to take out a drone or a vehicle. Oh, and while you're at it, just cook up a Spirit of Man and have it start flinging stunbolts too.
Of course, one could argue that the pendulum swung too far the other way in 5E in favor of Indirect Combat spells, especially AoE spells that couldn't really be dodged. There's truth to that, but I saw a lot more spell and casting variety in 5E than I ever did in 4E.
-
One player's nerf is another player's right-sizing.
Don't get me wrong; I don’t feel like I have an opinion on whether it was a good nerf or not. You make good points. (Mind you, that hasn’t stopped spirits getting - to my mind - hugely powerful in later editions.)
Another way to look at it is that manabolt is an infinitely concealable weapon [1]. Should a high-conceal weapon be equivalent to a pistol? Or an assault rifle? Or a Panther cannon? The former seems a bit more... in keeping.
So I’m not sure how I feel about the 5e version. Maybe it’s fine. Maybe (F/2) extra boxes of damage wouldn’t be a horrible idea. But the 6e version really does look very weak, though. I’m not sure why anyone would take it.
[1] sort of. People can detect you’re a mage, of course. But perhaps not easily, certainly less so than spotting a gun.
-
5E Combat spells scaled really lulzy. They went from "whatever" to "Well after we resolve the spell damage we'll have to figure out how much damage you take from the building collapsing" with not a lot in between.
I don't have a feel for 6E spells though.
-
While that 6e manabolt is pretty lolsy out the gate, progression deeply favors the mage, just like other editions. The defender's body and willpower is going to hit a dicepool cap in the range of 12-18 absolute maximum, while the mage's magic attribute and foci rating have unlimited potential. Not to mention drain becomes laughable quickly with centering, centering foci, and increased attribute.
That's assuming you can make it past the first run.
Look, I am not arguing about the fact that all awakened are back end powerful. I play the same character since 1e, just updated through the editions and is currently sitting around 18,000 karma AND is a mage. I freely admit that at a whim, I can melt 2 main battle tanks, and only suffer 3 stun drain on average. And I freely admit that no player should really have that amount of power.. especially when the other half of the party does not. (and strangely, I am not the "combat monster" of the group. That goes to the adept!)
BUT, at the same time, I have 30 years of playing the same character, with thousands of runs to get to that power level, and have had the advantage of not having magic deal twice the damage to me then to the target on every casting :P
Now, Maybe Manabolt isn't the optimal spell to use as an example due to changes to just manabolt..... And maybe flamethrower or some other single target attack spell would work out better.... But, well....yea like I said: "not looking good"..
Basically a mage casts what? 2 spells a run before he's useless by drain? (per the example) Why be a mage that casts spells? This is (depending on Spirits and summoning rules now) would make me more inclined to summon spirits to do my fighting/ casting... After all if (by the example) I am going to take 2 to 4 drain per spell, I might as well take that same 2 to 4 drain and summon a Spirit and use the spirit for the 2 to 4 services... Its just well... resource economy (in this case, my character's life!).
IF the manabolt example is correct and holds true through all the spells (and I have NO evidence of this), then there is just no reason to actually play a Mage. Sure you can play a gun bunny that summons Spirits. Or a Rigger that slings a spell... but a Mage? Not so much.
-
IF the manabolt example is correct and holds true through all the spells (and I have NO evidence of this), then there is just no reason to actually play a Mage. Sure you can play a gun bunny that summons Spirits. Or a Rigger that slings a spell... but a Mage? Not so much.
It's correct (I haven't noticed any errors at least) but it's not a complete picture.
For example, taking 4 stun from drain is less impactful in 6we than it was in earlier editions. Yes, your Condition Monitors are the same size, but damage goes away much easier. (Much, MUCH easier for those characters with full essence, like mages).
In addition to the usual Stim Patch "delay the problem" tactics, healing is easier, can be done more often, AND you can simply remove damage via edge expenditure on top of it all. So even if you were to take 4 drain every time you cast a spell, it's (potentially) not crippling you.
Also note that the lessened impact of damage itself is part of the calculus in why armor doesn't add to soak. Taking 3 damage in 6we is actually less of an impact than taking 3 damage in earlier editions, due to the greater ease in removing damage in 6we.
-
I never played in an edition with it, so I can't say for sure, but I probably would've liked Combat/Magic/Hacking pools.
4-5E Edge simplified it, to be sure, which makes it less finicky and has less of, "I use my entire pool to gank that guy, then hope nobody's going to turn a corner and attack me while I can't defend myself actively."
-
For example, taking 4 stun from drain is less impactful in 6we than it was in earlier editions.
I don’t think that’s remotely true. For a start, it’s the exact same -1 to all tests.
Yes, your Condition Monitors are the same size, but damage goes away much easier. (Much, MUCH easier for those characters with full essence, like mages).
Why is essence a factor? You can’t heal drain damage, either magically or via medkits. I don’t know why else you’d bring essence up.
Natural recovery mechanic seems to be the same:
6e: “To heal Stun Damage, roll Body + Willpower once per hour. Each hit heals a box of Stun Damage after that hour of rest.”
5e: “Make a Body + Willpower (1 hour) Extended Test. The character must rest for the entire hour for it to count (forced naps and unconsciousness also count). Each hit heals 1 box of Stun damage.”
In addition to the usual Stim Patch "delay the problem" tactics
Which is the same in 5e and 6e, right?
healing is easier, can be done more often
How? Again, we’re talking about drain, which explicitly cannot be healed.
AND you can simply remove damage via edge expenditure on top of it all. So even if you were to take 4 drain every time you cast a spell, it's (potentially) not crippling you.
”Simply” is doing a lot of work there. It’s 3 Edge to remove one box of stun damage. That’s loads. Where is the mage earning Edge from at that rate? Even if you allow the player to cheese Edge from drain rolls via that broken quality (Edit - Analytical Mind), and they can somehow find enough low-DR targets to cast against, it’s still only going to be 2 Edge per spell cast. That’s 2/3rds of one box. Where is the mage getting the Edge from to wave away this damage?
BTW I still don’t understand this question below, maybe you missed the post?
Surely either armour contributes to DR and resistance; or it effects neither. Why would it help your DR but be bypassed by the spell’s damaging effects?
-
Basically a mage casts what? 2 spells a run before he's useless by drain? (per the example)
Well, as I said, the example has stats picked to illustrate mechanics, rather than be good characters. Alice has a 3 in one of her drain stats - pretty weak. So I wouldn't read too much into that.
But we can fix that. Let’s make Optimised Alice. Bump her drain stats to 6 and 5 and her Sorcery skill to 6. And we’ll weaken Bob to the absolute lowest goon in the CRB, with all 2s for his stats. Then run it again.
Starting with her drain roll and working backwards: she now rolls 11 dice, so has a good chance of taking no drain from a non-amped manabolt, with its drain value of 4. But amping it would quite likely hurt her, so we won't do that. Her spellcasting roll is now 11 dice, for four (being generous) expected hits. Bob’s resistance roll is 4 dice, for one hit (again, being generous to Alice.) Net three hits. Bob takes 3 boxes; Alice takes none. Hmm. Not exactly overwhelming.
(BTW how is amping up a combat spell in 6e not the same basic thing as selecting the force in 5e? “Streamlined” my arse. But I digress.)
Let’s make Supercharged Alice. We’ll give her drain stats of 7 and 5, two levels of Initiation, and Centering. We’ll increase her Magic stat to 7 and a power focus at rating 2. We’ll also give her Increase Attribute at +4 on both her drain stats, sustained without penalty via Focused Concentration. That’s an impressive 22 dice, for an average of 7 hits. Let’s say she amps the spell twice, meaning she’s resisting 8 points of drain. Her spellcasting roll is now 15 dice, for 5 expected hits. Less Bob’s 1 expected hit to resist. Bob takes 6 boxes, Alice maybe takes 1.
Hmm some more. It's hitting hard now, but golly, Alice had to do a lot of work to get there. And don’t forget Bob is a compete schlub in this scenario.
Let’s say instead Ordinary Alice has an Ares Predator and can scrape up 6 dice in Firearms. She shoots Bob, with two expected hits. Bob’s defence test has one expected hit, for one net hit to Alice. Bob now rolls to soak 3P damage on Body 2, receiving 3 or 4 boxes of damage. Instead of facing drain, Alice has used one bullet.
I’m not seeing why Alice would ever spent five karma on learning manabolt.
Edit: forgot to add. In moving from 5e to 6e, when resisting physical damage, characters lost their armour, so dice pools went down from circa 12-20 to circa 3-6. Big step down. OK. But at the same time, when resisting direct combat spells, characters now get to add intuition to their willpower, approximately doubling their dice pool. This seems inconsistent.
(In all of the above scenarios, Alice probably gets an Edge, but per SSDR's advice she is saving it up to buy off her stun damage.)
Reaver, you mentioned summoning. Let's look at that. We know manabolt has a drain value of 4 before amping up. When summoning, the spirit rolls Force x2 dice, and the drain value is equal to the hits it rolls. So that means, someone, somewhere, said "yes, this manabolt spell is correctly balanced at the same drain as summoning a Force 6 spirit." Which, honestly, what the fuck. This makes no sense to me at all.
-
OK, First off...
using an example with averaged stats is fine. In fact it should be the norm. When you have to "optimize" to be effective.. then, in my opinion, there is a flaw in a game design, or a break down in the understanding of the word "Effective"....
OR, to put it another way....
There is more then one way to skin a cat... and if you can only skin it one way, then its NOT a cat...
-
OK, First off...
using an example with averaged stats is fine. In fact it should be the norm. When you have to "optimize" to be effective.. then, in my opinion, there is a flaw in a game design, or a break down in the understanding of the word "Effective"....
OR, to put it another way....
There is more then one way to skin a cat... and if you can only skin it one way, then its NOT a cat...
To be fair, I've only encountered a few games that scale from "Average Human" to "Superhuman" particularly well. Most games break down at one end or the other. Strict RAW Shadowrun quickly fails at normal person levels. Or at least results in a lot of Critically glitching Wage Slaves doing moderately difficult tasks.
"It was a good day, only 8% of the work force was Critically injured. Most of them will be back to work in a week!"
When you're looking at a world where Dice Pools of 2 and 3 are pretty standard, the Critical Glitch rules result in a lot of weirdness if strictly enforced.
-
For example, taking 4 stun from drain is less impactful in 6we than it was in earlier editions.
I don’t think that’s remotely true. For a start, it’s the exact same -1 to all tests.
It's true because damage is easier to heal, and therefore the penalty doesn't stick around to affect as many tests. You don't have to do kinds of healing in a certain order in 6we... you can do both first aid AND healing no matter which order you do them in. Furthermore it's actually reasonable that you get all 3 chances to heal one set of wounds (whereas in 5e medkit and first aid were considered the same thing, and you had to go hit an NPC to get 3 heals on the same damage).
And, granted. Mea culpa on the drain thing... I'm not sure why I thought 6we changed that, but it clearly didn't. So, yes that's technically stuck at natural healing, but it's largely moot due to the stimpatch "bypass" to remove the damage, then first aid/medkit/magically heal the stim patch damage that comes back later. Yes that was also true in 5e, but in 6we again you have THREE tests to remove the stim patch damage, not two.
So, ultimately, the same amount of damage, even if it gives the same -dice penalty, is less impactful over the course of a run because it goes away more easily.
(In all of the above scenarios, Alice probably gets an Edge, but per SSDR's advice she is saving it up to buy off her stun damage.)
No, my advice has consistently been to spend edge gained on the AR/DR comparison, if you're going to spend it at all, on making the opponent reroll hits. That's the whole point in telling people their math is wrong when they falsely claim that a reroll only counts for 1/3 of a hit. No, rerolling an opposing hit means a 5 or 6 gets turned into a 1,2,3,4,5, or 6. There's only 2 in 6 odds that the hit remains a hit, and 4 in 6 odds that the hit is turned into a miss. 4 in 6 is mathematically the same thing as 2 in 3, and hence the 2/3rds chance of increasing your net hits by one if you reroll (an opponent's) die. And by extension, if your DR means you denied your attacker an edge, that means in effect you're already up 2/3rds of a net hit (compared to being naked) because you denied edge.
-
You appear to have ignored about 2/3rds of my points there, SSDR.
-
And by extension, if your DR means you denied your attacker an edge, that means in effect you're already up 2/3rds of a net hit (compared to being naked) because you denied edge.
so your entire premise rests on the fact that there's a huge difference between 1/3 point of damage and 2/3 point of damage?
Come on Stainless you're better than that.
-
Strict RAW Shadowrun quickly fails at normal person levels. Or at least results in a lot of Critically glitching Wage Slaves doing moderately difficult tasks.
"It was a good day, only 8% of the work force was Critically injured. Most of them will be back to work in a week!"
When you're looking at a world where Dice Pools of 2 and 3 are pretty standard, the Critical Glitch rules result in a lot of weirdness if strictly enforced.
This has been my experience too. Hobbes just put it more humorously than I would.
Low-powered games are my favorite, but my experience has been that you shouldn't limit the dice pools of the players (for the reasons Hobbes stated); instead you should scale the expected dice pools of the opposition. This changes the weight of certain modifiers (environmental, cover, Edge, etc. depending on edition) but sidesteps the lulz of glitches and crit glitches every time someone throws a punch.
-
OK, First off...
using an example with averaged stats is fine. In fact it should be the norm. When you have to "optimize" to be effective.. then, in my opinion, there is a flaw in a game design, or a break down in the understanding of the word "Effective"....
OR, to put it another way....
There is more then one way to skin a cat... and if you can only skin it one way, then its NOT a cat...
To be fair, I've only encountered a few games that scale from "Average Human" to "Superhuman" particularly well. Most games break down at one end or the other. Strict RAW Shadowrun quickly fails at normal person levels. Or at least results in a lot of Critically glitching Wage Slaves doing moderately difficult tasks.
"It was a good day, only 8% of the work force was Critically injured. Most of them will be back to work in a week!"
When you're looking at a world where Dice Pools of 2 and 3 are pretty standard, the Critical Glitch rules result in a lot of weirdness if strictly enforced.
True. Most systems do require to you build something a little beyond the average "person" in their game. And that is normal, after all the trope is the characters are more then the average person (they are a PC!!)
To use a the old staple of Gaming (DnD), I am not saying that you should be able to have 9s in everything and do as much as someone who as 15s in every stat....
BUT, if you have to put a 16 into 3 stats just to play the class..... then something is wrong with the class.
In shadowrun, the big thing I see a lot are dice pools... There are endless arguments out there that you "need" a dice pool of 15 to be effective. Only to have those people told they are idiots and you need a dice pool of 22!!! But no... the 22 dice pool people are idiots - you need 30!!! - and on it goes...
First off. Not everything is a test in Shadowrun.
You don't need a driving test to go to the market to get your loaf of Soy-bread.
You don't need a Social test to buy that soy-bread...
You don't need a matrix test to surf You-Porn (and lets be honest. That's 80% of the matrix traffic... just like today :D )
Don't get me wrong.. its fun picking up that mountain of dice, giving them a shake or two before unleashing the pain is all part of the fun. I get that...
I don't know... Maybe I'm old. Maybe I've got a good GM.. Our table is mix of high powered characters (transfers through multiple editions), low karma characters, and even a guy in middle (well, as best a middle as you can). Dice pools range from 9 for our "Newbie", to 42 for the adept. And yet he makes it work, and we all have fun...
-
FWIW, in regards to percentages being used to predict dice roll outcomes and why they are (or are not) accurate representations of game mechanics. There is a distinct difference between "statistical " and "probable" models using single die statistics to reflect and encompass the outcomes of multiple dice rolls (specifically with "glitch " and "critical glitch" mechanics) factored in. The odds of obtaining a wildly successful roll compared to an utterly abysmal failure depends entirely on the amount of dice rolled for that test resolution.
-
In shadowrun, the big thing I see a lot are dice pools... There are endless arguments out there that you "need" a dice pool of 15 to be effective. Only to have those people told they are idiots and you need a dice pool of 22!!! But no... the 22 dice pool people are idiots - you need 30!!! - and on it goes...
First off. Not everything is a test in Shadowrun.
You don't need a driving test to go to the market to get your loaf of Soy-bread.
You don't need a Social test to buy that soy-bread...
You don't need a matrix test to surf You-Porn (and lets be honest. That's 80% of the matrix traffic... just like today :D )
Absolutely valid points. There are always more dice, and no matter how many your PC throws the GM has more.
And correct most wage slaves probably go a week or more without doing anything so strenuous as to cause an actual dice check. But there are millions of them in the 'plex. But just imagine an XL class of 100 kids doing their first Pivot Table. It would be a mass casualty event of exploded monitors, dump shock and rogue AIs turned lose.
But I agree with your main point, once you get past the silly low end dice pool probability stupidity, Dice pools don't really matter. If the table is mostly 8 to 12 dice and everyone is having fun, you're doing it right. In spite of my power-gamery ways I do get that the fun is the thing.
-
You appear to have ignored about 2/3rds of my points there, SSDR.
He seems to have answered the core issue. Its easier to heal, normally it doesn't work on drain, but if you take a stim patch it heals the drain and when the damage comes back its no longer drain damage and therefore can be healed. And in 6e healing is generally easier for mages than it was in 5e.
For that workaround, I don't know anyone who reads it that way, but hey I can see it. Its not specific in that the damage that comes back is the same type it was before. I think its clear that's what it is supposed to be, and the lack of specificity IMO does not mean the damage now isn't drain damage. But hey, RAW I guess. It would make the rule that you can't heal drain entirely pointless, but go on if that is what you want, it's your game. And once you have that handled your rate of gaining edge to heal stun damage is kind of moot. Yeah its likely slow but you wont need it to heal drain, take a stim patch and then heal the stim patch damage with a medkit.
He ignored the DR part but I'm not sure what you mean. That's just how armor works. It effects your DR but does nothing to help with your resistance, whether its a punch, a gun, a spell etc. (outside fire mods etc) is it weird that armor increases the DR against a stun bolt? to me, sure, but its a new edition they changed how magic works again. I'm not a fan of the thematic changes to things like this, I think having to see the target should matter not just the point of origin of the AoE. Is it easier this way, probably, but its not shadowrun. But even under older editions if the defense of a armor could represent the bulk of the armor you could in the thematic level say it effected how well the mage could sync with the targets aura, so eh its not the same rules but it kind of fits with the settings lore on magic.
-
...He ignored the DR part but I'm not sure what you mean. That's just how armor works...
Basically, that.
There's no new ground to cover with how armor works/doesn't work. I didn't go there because we just went in circles in the other thread, and didn't think it'd be any different here. So, yeah. I'm getting off this merry-go-round.
...is it weird that armor increases the DR against a stun bolt? to me, sure, but its a new edition they changed how magic works again...
Also, that. Ok, so armor adds to DR. Wierd? I think so too. Is it a mistake? Well, it sure looks to be deliberate. And yes, as I tried to make the point: there ARE new meta-physics as of this edition. This appears to be one of the new changes to how magic "works".
-
I've added a section about the action economy (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU/edit#heading=h.tew8i2itmb2t) to the document.
-
I've added a section about the action economy (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU/edit#heading=h.tew8i2itmb2t) to the document.
Ahhh, the fond memories of ordering pizza when combat started.... The 2 meth soaked, cyber wired gun totting circus monkeys would EACH go 4 to 6 times before my mage would..
Also, you answered a question to a heated conversation I had 5 years ago with our Sammy....
-
Also, you answered a question to a heated conversation I had 5 years ago with our Sammy....
Go on...
-
Also, you answered a question to a heated conversation I had 5 years ago with our Sammy....
Go on...
not really relevant to anything here. Just when we went to move out characters from 3e to 4e, our Sammy threw a mild hissy fit at the time. I didn't really get what he was pissed about then...
basically its the cost differences between 3e and 4e...
-
I've added a section about the action economy (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU/edit#heading=h.tew8i2itmb2t) to the document.
Ahhh, the fond memories of ordering pizza when combat started.... The 2 meth soaked, cyber wired gun totting circus monkeys would EACH go 4 to 6 times before my mage would..
Also, you answered a question to a heated conversation I had 5 years ago with our Sammy....
I liked that as a mage. When I eventually went if i went at all it was more powerful, and I had far more utility. It usually only took 5 minutes or so before I got to go. The imagery of a street sam moving faster than your eye could track while you struggled to get a spell off was awesome to me.
-
I've added a section about the action economy (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CgYPNt4ZhMIZWSCKbmqyhgrtaNTgRUKdU2iwXH_lczU/edit#heading=h.tew8i2itmb2t) to the document.
Very nice to see it laid out out like this(!)
If you like some feedback on the document I have a few minor nitpicks that you might or might not want to use (up to you).
Initiative row. 5e "same as 4e" (rather than repeating it). 6e "same as 4e" (rather than repeating it)
Basic intiative row. 4e is empty. 6e "same as 5e"
Would also have been interesting with a third character with 4 or even 5 minor actions, to highlight and compare, since this is the biggest change in 6e compared to earlier edition. Perhaps a character that is in hot-sim VR. Or is perhaps using the second highest wired reflexes the market have to offer (which also cost 3 essence in all editions, including 6e).
In the Multiple actions within the turn table you might want to mention number of actions within an phases, number of action phase within an initiative pass and number of initiative passes within a combat turn. You also might want to mention that an initiative pass in previous edition is basically what they called a "turn" in 6e (you don't reroll initiative between initiative passes, combat turn is when you reroll initiative).
On the initiative results row, instead of "N/A" for 6e perhaps consider something like; "Each Initiative dice give one extra minor action"
In the example turn table, since "turns" in 6e act mechanically a lot more like what we used to call "initiative passes" from previous editions (for example, you don't reroll as you do between combat turns), maybe consider adding a few more rows (you have the space):
25: Alice acts
11: Bob acts
end of turn (but don't roll new initiative)
25: Alice acts
11: Bob acts
end of turn (but don't roll new initiative)
25: Alice acts
11: Bob acts
On action type row, consider having something like "On their phase, characters may exchange 4 minor actions for 1 major action" for the 6e column
In 6th edition there are *many* minor (anytime) actions and major (anytime) actions you can take out of order. This is mechanically the same thing as the older free actions, simple interrupt actions and complex interrupt actions from previous edition. Not sure where this belong or how to phrase it though, but I think this should be mentioned somewhere. On free action row (perhaps) and on the interrupt action row (perhaps)?
On SS weapon row. For 6e consider simplifying the text to "All weapons can be fired once per major action."
On running row. For 5e this is also a free action ("same as 4e").
SR5 p. 164 Run
Running uses a Free Action and inflicts Running movement modifiers.
On the trolls row, consider to also mention dwarf speed and if it changed throughout the editions.
Running penalty row, 5th edition column "same as 4e".
SR5 p. 162 Running Modifiers
Characters who are running take a –2 dice pool modifier to all actions performed while running
Sprinting row, 6e consider simplifying the text to "Can sprint via Athletics skill (Major action), cannot be combined with Move minor action"
Example turn order with all characters attacking as often as possible with SA/BF weapons table. Alice have Wired Reflexes 2 which only give her 1 major and 3 minor actions. Might be interesting to highlight that people that just augment their initiative with 1-2 essence are the big losers in 6e. But it is also interesting to highlight that people that invest 3+ essence both get to attack more often and get to land more attacks earlier than they did in previous edition (which is what Alice is currently showcasing in this table, a notation that I don't think a lot of people didn't fully understood).
Edit: Once again, just minor nitpicks.
I really appreciate the work you put into this.