[Coyote]

One of the things about Shadowrun rewards the super minmaxy side of things way more is how character creation rules and character advancement rules differ.  Taking your Troll with Exceptional Strength and Genetic Optimization Strength and advancing Strength from 10 to 12 in play costs 115 karma.  That same advance in character creation costs two attribute points.

Advancing Charisma from 1 to 3 in play costs 25 karma in play, but it costs those same 2 attribute points in character creation.  Much cheaper and more practical to start with strength twelve, then buy up charisma later.

Skills are in a similar spot.

I recommend starting at around fifteen dice in your main skill not because you need that many dice to be effective, nor from an idea of working up from there, but because it's so much easier to start really good at your specialty, and then build that broader ability base out in play than it is to start out spread out and build up into a specialty.

Also, I like having my main base covered, then spending my advancement however I feel like and however feels appropriate for the campaign.

Spot on. You get more mileage out of having a few high dice pools at character creation, since it's easier to pick up a lot of low-medium pools later. Especially if you do this and also take Jack of all Trades.

[Senko]

Not something I'm a fan of as I'm a generalist at heart and always hate the pressure to put 6 in x and 0 in Y rather than 3 in each. Especially as mages have to pay in karma for all advancements and there's a lot of non-magic and even non-runner related skills I'd like to put a few points in like artisan.

I know it'd be a pain to rebalance everything (why I haven't tried) but I'd really like to see at least some of these magic skills combined to reduce the number you need to focus on. At least the mirror image ones enchanting/disenchanting, summoning/banishing, maybe spellcasting/counterspelling or spellcasting/ritual spellcasting. I'd say all 3 to be honest into one spellcasting skill but casting/counterspelling are major usage skills do there'd be a major effect on gameplay compared to lumping in the in my experience largely niche enchanting, disenchanting and banishing skills. I'd also like to see arcana dropped and it's functions spread out over other skills with assensing being lumped into perception checks. Even those changes would drop 12 magic skills to 7/8 depending on how many of the spellcasting ones you grouped into one. The remainder (with the exception of alchemy which depends on how you treat it) are distinct enough in their own right to make sense from a common usage perspective for me.

Of course this isn't solely a magic issue given the number of times I've debated computer use here. Still its one of those annoying issues where you wind up with either not enough skill points to make a character who suits your tastes in terms of what someone should have or you wind up with dice pools too low for what the game community encourages people to aim for (if only because it costs less to buy low rank skills later than to buy low rank ones up to higher values). However if you increase the number of available skill points you'd probably only increase the gap between a generalist who spreads them out to cover things like basic computer use (don't bother debating this i know I'm in the minority with my views and most prefer to default) or artisan for cooking or even chemistry and a minmaxer (as opposed to a munchkin) who after getting the required magic skills puts a six into automatics.

[Beta]

It isn’t just magic, it is certainly similar with computer skills.  If you want to be an all-around decker who can play any roll, you are looking at half a dozen skills (plus probably some related knowledges).  If you wanted to be at “professional level, you could get a job doing this” (not exact words, but roughly how level six skill is described in the CRB), then you’d want a six at all of these – but short of skill priority A that would pretty much be all of your skill build points, or more.  So in reality you’ll have to choose to be good at some computer related stuff and weaker at others, in order to have some modest meat-space skills.

That is fine, but it doesn’t align well with the fiction and fluff, where deckers are typically described as being pretty omni-competent in the matrix.  At least with the fluff on magicians they often don’t include alchemy, if only because that is relatively young related to the game history.

That said, the situation reminds me a bit of first edition.  Yes, skill were broader then, but skill points were in pretty short supply.  I don’t have the sheet or the 1st edition book, but I seem to recall that my first character, a shaman, had six in spellcasting and summoning, a bit of stealth and perception, and managed two points in each of etiquette, bikes,  and firearms (as well as starting with only three spells, only one them at a high force level).  I do recall there being some dissonance in 1st edition between the descriptions and quotes of the archetype character builds, and their actual skill levels.  The former tended to suggest seasoned professionals, the latter suggested people just getting started in the field – although attribute points were higher, typically, in first edition so that characters at least felt like gifted amateurs.

[Reaver]

Interesting you choose to use a skill of 6 as the starting level of "professional".....And I think this speaks to the risconnect both me and Bull were alluding to.

By the skill write ups, professional kicks in around rank 4.
So this means the "average professional" has a dice pool of 6 to 8 on average. 4 for skill, then 2 to 4 for the attribute. (Plus modifiers for gear).


BUT, many people insist you NEED a skill of 6 minimum. You Don't. Not really. But what does happen is there seems to be an arms race between the GM and the players that seems to go around in a circle.

GM feels "gutter punks" should have 12 dice for guns.
Players want to be better then punks, do they make sure their skill is 18.
GM watches players waste punks, ups 'cops' gun skill to 18.
Players invest more resources to overmatch cops, raising skills to 22...

And the dice arms race continues...


The only thing I can think of is this is a legt over mindset from DnD days in many players and GMs who think after every session the CR of the monsters has to improve (in this case, dice)....

[PJ]

I just looked up 1e and 2e for skills an attributes.  Attributes went 30/24/20/17/15, Skills 40/30/24/20/17.  Keep in mind there used to be only six Attributes, and you started at 0.  Skills had no cap and Attributes were not added to Skill rolls.  It was a bit different...

I too believe there are too many skills.  I would prefer a return to the more general skills of earlier editions, and just lower the starting points in priority.  There have been other threads about a compromise, combining some of the skills and/ or putting more into groups.  Both are good ideas.

Going to a flat rate cost to improve Skills and Attributes would go ways toward making it more viable to build a balanced character besides one min maxed, because honestly, you are penalized by not min maxing with Priority generation (and to a lesser extent, Life Modules too).

If we combined some Skills and rearranged Skill Groups, then changed improvement to flat Karma costs, I think it would go a long way toward improving what is still a great game.  Oh, and dropping Skill maximum to 9 (10 with Quality) as well.

[HobDobson]

Dump-statting all but the attributes and skills that support a few competencies does go a long way towards answering the question: "Why are all these computing gurus and grand high wizards running the shadows instead of working for the corporations?" It's not so much a protest against "selling out", but the result of failing the recruiters' vetting process. 

It probably doesn't help that the people most likely to be offended or wierded out by nonconformists tend to work in HR or middle management.

"For the interview, couldn't you at least try to summon something a bit more cuddly or even client-friendly than 'Belphegor, Hell's Ambassador to France'?"

[Wakshaani]

Yeah, there'd be some reworking if I were GodKingEmperor, but thank goodness there are bunches of smart people around to whack me with magazines when I start spinning off into ideas that are too weird. I mean, I have an outline for a rework of the magic system in my head, which starts with "Magic is too cheap" and goes from there.

And while that works for some styles of game, it doesn't click for ALL of them, and I have to remember that the greater sandbox is for everyone, so, I need to not break other peoples' toys. Because that's just rude, yo.

As for skill diffusion, it's both working and not working. People have spent time to find "The best" skills, discarded the "weak" ones, and the idea of fluff skills is sitting out on the sidewalk, weeping. "Why would I spend 4 skill points giving my street samurai origami?" But but but!

In the Olde Days, having, for instance, "Firearms", a single skill that covered all bangbang was an issue. Unfortunately, the split that came from it gave us "Automatics", which people quickly jumped on as it gave them pistols (well, machine pistols), SMGs, and assault rifles, thus was the 'best' skill. You can find similar with magical skills.

So, I'm in an odd place where I'd love to combine and remove several skills, while adding a few more, and establishing a sort of baseline that we can work from in the future.

And then we get to skill ratings and dice pools. That ... is a long, painful talk. And, again, we need to allow for a wide array of playstyles, ranging from streetscum to worldbeaters.

And THEN you get to karmagen vs build points vs lettercodes and ... man. It's a LONG conversation.

[Senko]

For me I don't feel magic is too cheap but I do feel forced every time I make a character to put 6 in x with a specialisation to be "viable" where I'd rather have 4 and 2 points in swimming and 1 in artisan for basic cooking and a 3 in computer use because my mage has basic professional knowledge there but struggles with complex tricks, maybe a 2_3 in drive ground vehicles and oh I forgot summoning so 4 there and. . . I'm out of skill points already guess I need to take that at a higher priority what do I sacrifice attributes or magic. It's all those useful/vital life skills that cost for me since I choke on the 0 untrained but just default attitude.

Even if I've given way on a lot of it I'd still rather a mage with 1 hobbyist rank in all magic skills because it turns can't roll into 8 dice give or take some character creation which as you said is equivalent to normal professional level even if your relying heavily in innate talent rather than actual knowledge. Sure my sorcery is 4)5 maybe even 6 for a die pool of 10-12 but I'm still good at alchemy and enchanting should it ever come up

[Blue Rose]

Not something I'm a fan of as I'm a generalist at heart and always hate the pressure to put 6 in x and 0 in Y rather than 3 in each. Especially as mages have to pay in karma for all advancements and there's a lot of non-magic and even non-runner related skills I'd like to put a few points in like artisan.

Personally, I find that uninteresting, and kind of a cop out to making the choice.

It's kind of like the person who comes to the table with a scientist.

What kind of scientist?  A botanist?  A chemist?  A physicist?  A geologist?

I have a degree in science!

People specialize.  They invariably gravitate towards one method or another that works for them and becomes their go-to.  They may have some base level of competence in one or the other, but more than likely, they are not going to have 3 in all skills relevant to their field.  More likely, they'll have one that's their best, a couple that are okay, and some they have a base level of competence in, creating a more dynamic ability profile.

And it's just 2 karma to buy rank 1 skills after you've spent all your skill points.  You can get a LOT of rank 1 skills, and you can get a ton of mileage out of 'em.  Even rank 1 summoning can get you some significant overwatch.

Plus, put two similar characters who specialize in different directions, who therefore operate very differently and it's far more interesting than someone who tries to spread themselves too thin.

[Senko]

To each their own, I think its a bit of a disconnect between us in where that specialization comes in. For you if I read your post right its in the skills i.e. your a sorcerer or a summoner or a alchemist whereas to me those are the base skills equivilent of the basic math's, reading, research skills any of those different disciplines would have. The specialization comes in with the spells you learn and metamagics you master as opposed to the active skills. That is it doesn't matter if you have multiple mages with 6 summoning, 6 sorcery, 6 ritual casting they can still be very different mages. Mage A could be the traditional DND, movie style combat mage with lots of combat spells offensive and defensive, mage B might have no combat spells but lots of healing spells to deal with disease, addiction, injuries, poisons, mage C might be more inclined towards construction and sustainable resourcese with spells to cleanse the earth, air, water and also to shape and move it and mage D might have specialized with metamagics and learnt spells to fengshui your apartment for the rich and fashionable. 4 very different mages ones a soldier, another a doctor, the third a builder and the last a fashion designer but all have the same base skills.

Of course part of that could be because so many of the skills to me shouldn't be split up even though they feel like the same thing e.g. enchanting/disenchanting. It leaves me with the feeling their less chemistry and more having one skill for chemical reactions and another for chemically seperating compounds and another for something else. So your not looking for a "chemist" but rather a chemist who can mix two things together as opposed to the many other chemists who don't know how to do that. Different views for different people.

[HobDobson]

Personally, I find that uninteresting, and kind of a cop out to making the choice.

It's kind of like the person who comes to the table with a scientist.

What kind of scientist?  A botanist?  A chemist?  A physicist?  A geologist?

I have a degree in science!

Personally, I do have a degree in geology.  It looks to me like you're underestimating the breadth on knowledge a recent graduate with a four-year degree should have, while overstating the amount of specialization to be expected. Even a doctoral candidate will normally have significant interests and expertise outside the four walls of a classroom or wet lab.

Granted, you may find playing Dr. Phish Outtawater, PhD, MIT&T, far more interesting than a runner with a BS in earth or biological sciences (or related engineering fields), and maybe a military hitch in their background. But for some of us, it's the hyperspecialist that may not always ring true. 

[Jack_Spade]

Whenever this argument crops up, I like to remind people, that you can default on skills - especially knowledge skills -  and you can substitute skills at a penalty. So you really only need to be good in your main field. The peripheral knowledge you accumulate can easily be simulated by taking a -3 to the test.

[Rosa]

I guess it also depends quite a bit on whether you expect the campaign you make a character for to be either long or short. I can see the temptation to min/max if you expect the campaign to be relatively short. For me i knew that the campaign we started several years ago would be long, so it made sense to make sure that all my magical skills were good, and as far as specialization goes, that is my specialization....Magic, not only spells, not only spirits or enchanting but all of it. But since i knew it would be a long campaign i also wanted to make a well rounded character with hobbies, normal skills that people pick up and stuff, but i can toally see that that would be considered a Waste of karma if you knew that the campaign would over before you made 30 karma points. Yes focussing on all aspects of magic is definitely expensive, but when you know the campaign will be long, totally worth it as it heightens your characters utility and Senko is right that there are many more ways to differentiate between mages than just if they are focussed on spells or spirits, spells and metamagic are great for specializing and differentiating.

Also......Magic is too cheap?!? In what universe is that? I guess you could say that if you made one of those min/maxed characters that were only really really good at one or two magical skills, but magic is still by far the biggest karma sink there is, tonnes of skills ( 12 by my Count not counting relevant background skills : Assensing, Astral combat, Arcana, Enchanting Group, Conjuring Group and sorcery Group ) including relevant background skills, foci binding...etc. When i started back in 3rd edition you had sorcery, conjuring, enchanting, arcana and i don't actually remember if astral combat and assensing were skills of their own back then, but in essence a lot less skills, when we went to 4th edition, sorcery and conjuring were split into Groups of 3 skills each, the others were kept as single skills, in 5th we have further split enchanting into a skill Group of 3 skills, so magic has become extremely diffused and quite the opposite of cheap unless you go for extreme specialization.

Is it working as intended? Well if the object of the diffusing effort was to force players to become one- or two trick ponies, then yes it's working as intended, which is quite clear to see from several of the comments here and also in the character creation section of this forum, unless of course you are willing to wait and sink hundreds of karma points into your mage, but as i stated in the beginning it very much depends on your expectation in regards to the length of the campaign you're about to play.

[Senko]

Whenever this argument crops up, I like to remind people, that you can default on skills - especially knowledge skills -  and you can substitute skills at a penalty. So you really only need to be good in your main field. The peripheral knowledge you accumulate can easily be simulated by taking a -3 to the test.

True you can do that and if you enjoy playing that way have fun but like I said I personally choke on that attitude. My mage picking up  . . .  an assault rifle and trying to substitute long arms because i'm bracing it against my shoulder as an emergency "I don't want to die" action sure but just doing it as a basic thing on a regular gaming basis for skills that are to me universal. I hate it as I really do find it spoils a lot of my fun. I'm not trying to play a doctor who style character of I know everything about everything but I do want to have my mage be viable and still have some basic knowledge of cooking, have learnt how to swim and drive a car etc. I know its per the rules and like I said I've accepted I'm in the minority about this but its a basic difference in how I see things I don't think I'll ever get over. Rating 0 is untrained and in the little sidebar is described as

"The default level of knowledge obtained through interaction with society and the Matrix. Though untrained, you have a general awareness of the skill, and occasionally may even be able to fake it."

and its here where that argument comes up. The idea of rating zero drive ground vehicle being "Drive normally and only need to default if doing something out of the ordinary" to me rings false both because of my own experiences when learning to drive and the description quoted above. Yet that's the normal one people take as you said of don't put points in it rating 0 is drive normally and default if you need to "fake" a stunt. Its why a teenager who's only seen driving on tv/movies/games and via chatting with friends still has to LEARN to drive with a qualified driver in the car (here anyway) to ensure they don't have as many accidents.

Same with all the other "life skills" that to me should be at a 1-4 for most character's regardless of specialization unless they're doing a lifestyle where they didn't grow up in this kind of society e.g. a shifter or a sinless street rat. Swimming, artisan, computer use, drive ground vehicle and the slightly more specific but still largley useful ones like first aid, etiquette, negotiation or first aid. Sure they wont be 4+ skilled professional much less a 6+ sought out and name their price one but any runner who's grown up around the matrix would in my opinion be at least a 1 beginer in computer use or have picked up a 1/2 beginner/novice in negotiation if only to ensure the face doesn't negotiate a 10,000 yen run take a 8,000 yen cut and split the remaining 2,000 four way's or to handle buying their own supplies.

Still no point arguing about it I've accepted there's the majority view of . . .

6+ in one or two skills and 0/default in the rest.

and my view shared by a few others of. . . .

4+ in your specializations and 1-3 in the other skills to fill out general lifestyle things you pick up like learning basic driving skills. It just means I have to be careful what games I play in and ensure the DM isn't starting the characters off against the 12-18 die pool range as the basic opposition.

EDIT
I think part of the problem is the knowledge skills to be honest. A basic high school graduate these day's is going to have knowledge of mathmatics, chemistry, literature, possibly a second or third language, electives like chemistry, biology, acting (which is active skills but we did get some theory), home ec (artisan another active skill), some schools offer mechanical courses. Try to make a runner who has that background AND the running skills they need and you start to struggle or at least I do. Sure its fine if your going with a 0 is what everyone know's and default the stunts but if your not then its almost impossible to make especially if your going with a sam who needs combat stats more than mental ones and may only have 8 or 10 knowledge points. Hmmm I might start a character creation thread tommorow on what a typical high school graduate should have and see how easy it is to make just that.

[farothel]

I agree with Senko that it's difficult to have all the skills you expect a person with at least some education to know.  Try taking all the skills you have yourself and then see what priority you have to give it if you want a character to have all those skills.

I always have the same problem when creating a runner that I want to have a fully rounded character with hobbies and all that, and it eats up a lot of skill points.  Unless I play a very strange character I never let a runner go out the door without at least one social skill, one combat skill, one hobby, one knowledge interest, drive, perception, computer use and first aid.  That means at least 4-5 skills outside their main specialty.

I think it comes down to what type of game you play at your table.  When we played shadowrun we had characters with the highest dice pools not higher than 12-15.  If everybody is in the same range, it's not a problem as the GM can adapt to that and you can very much enjoy yourself.  It also means that if someone can't make it, or if the group has to split up, you have other characters who can take up the slack (not as good, but enough to get by) by using their secondary skills.
If at your table you play with hyper-specialists who have 20+ dice in their niche, that's fine for me either.  It's your game.  The only problem is when some do it one way and some the other way, as that might create problems (what's a challenge for one character, is a walk-over for the other).