[jim1701]

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. 

[falar]

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.

[Wakshaani]

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.

[Beta]

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.

[jim1701]

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.

[Whiskeyjack]

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.

[Pap Renvela]

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?

[Critias]

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. 

[Pap Renvela]

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.

[Lorebane24]

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.

[Whiskeyjack]

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).

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

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.

[Wakshaani]

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.

[Whiskeyjack]

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).

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

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.