[DragginSPADE]

So as I continue to read the SR5 rules and read the forums I find that there is a lot of interesting stuff in the new (to me) edition.  But one thing that jumps out at me is the sheer number of skills required to do what could be done with many fewer skills in earlier editions.  Since I like the magical side of SR the best I'll use it as an example.

In SR5 it requires 7-8 skills plus a metamagic to do what a starting magician in SR3 could do with 2 skills.

SR3: Sorcery and Conjuring. You can do any basic task spellcasting related, conjuring related, summon watchers, put up wards and modify your area of effect spell sizes out of the gate with those two skills.  Astral tasks used those skills or an attribute.

SR5: All three skills in the sorcery skill group, Two to three skills in the conjuring group depending on whether you count Binding, plus Assensing and Astral Combat.   Additionally, you'd need to take the Watcher and Ward ritual magics and the metamagic Spell Shaping to match a starting 3rd ed character could do.  And if you want to cast any of your spells ritually you need to take an extra ritual for that too.

I'm not bashing SR5, there's a lot of cool new stuff added such as Preparations, the ability to use spell regents in normal casting, etc.  All very cool.  But from theory crafting new characters and reading the forums, it seems this diffusion of skills means new characters will be either less broadly capable than earlier starting characters, or much more specialized into a single niche,  at least at first.  Granted you get a lot more skill points at character creation than we used to, but it doesn't seem to be enough to make a generalist of equal skill.

My question is, does anyone know from a developer or other official source if this tendency towards ultra specialized character creation now is Working As Intended, or a product of Law of Unintended Consequences?

[AwesomenessDog]

This is just an educated guess:

There was likely a discussion about the powerfulness of a character that could start with two skills maxed because that's all they before they got into character specifics. Instead of pressuring people to start weaker by not capping their abilities at the beginning and creating a "damned if you do/don't" scenario, they likely just opted to spread out the responsibility from 3 to 4e and then again from 4 to 5e. I don't think the developers wanted to make it require two awakened (because 1/100*(<1)/100=(<1)/10000) to have most aspects of the the awakened world covered. What likely happened was they tried to expand skills to be able to cover more than one skills end goal by indirectly doing the same thing, and wound up adding more skills in the process.

[Senko]

6 skills does cost a lot of Karma to raise

[Blue Rose]

It's largely to reduce the power of a single skill.  That said, it did kind of end up separating the part of the skills that people care about from the ones people don't care about.

Realistically, a magician cares about spellcasting and summoning.  Then, maybe they care about counterspelling and binding, and they probably don't care about banishing or ritual magic.

You can be a fully functional mage with, say, Spellcasting 6 with a specialization in your favorite school and Summoning 1 with a specialization in your favorite spirit.  The rest is gravy.

[HobDobson]

You can be a fully functional mage with, say, Spellcasting 6 with a specialization in your favorite school and Summoning 1 with a specialization in your favorite spirit. 

Unless you plan to build into a more versatile magician over time, it might make sense to save skill points/karma by building an aspected sorceror. Let the team hire an aspected conjuror for calling up bigger spirits.

Better yet, back up the sorcery specialist with a magician that can be flexible among sorcery and conjuring tasks. Crossfire and multiple lanes of fire can be wonderful things - ever notice that few surviving shadowrunning teams have only one gunner?

In a similar vein, an aspected enchanter taking on some of the noncombat/utility spellcasting can still rig drones or fire weapons in combat. Preparations triggered by contact or elapsed time do not require LOS. That was not the Lego block you wanted to step on.

It does look to me like the developers wanted to encourage having more Awakened and more diverse Awakened characters on Shadowrun teams. Now the question is which one to geek first.

[Blue Rose]

Unless you plan to build into a more versatile magician over time, it might make sense to save skill points/karma by building an aspected sorceror. Let the team hire an aspected conjuror for calling up bigger spirits.

Better yet, back up the sorcery specialist with a magician that can be flexible among sorcery and conjuring tasks. Crossfire and multiple lanes of fire can be wonderful things - ever notice that few surviving shadowrunning teams have only one gunner?

In a similar vein, an aspected enchanter taking on some of the noncombat/utility spellcasting can still rig drones or fire weapons in combat. Preparations triggered by contact or elapsed time do not require LOS. That was not the Lego block you wanted to step on.

It does look to me like the developers wanted to encourage having more Awakened and more diverse Awakened characters on Shadowrun teams. Now the question is which one to geek first.

There's almost no reason to ever make an aspected mage, sadly, except maybe if you need priority D magic for some reason.

The above is just hoodoo on a budget, but even with someone spending so lightly on magical skills, that one rank in summoning with a specialization, for nine dice to summon, say, a fire spirit?  That is still extremely useful and provides you a broad selection of powerful options above and beyond what's available to an aspected sorcerer.

I also would never recommend an aspected enchanter.  Two of those skills barely have any defined use, and Alchemy is... not good.  There are some uses you might be able to find for it, but it really isn't good.  You can get some mileage out of an aspected sorcerer or conjurer, but an aspected enchanter?  Ugh.

[Senko]

Some people seem to feel a "fun challenge" is something most people give up on because they're just getting frustrated by beating their head against a brick wall. I recall one computer game forum where someone complained the raids were to easy and you shouldn't be able to beat them until you were in the tier above. That is a raid in the t6 bracket would only be fun for them if it was impossible to complete for anyone actually in t6. Not very hard, not only beatable by the best players but impossible. I can see then wanting to play an aspected enchanter.

[Blue Rose]

The most likely way I can see it working is if it were little more than a hobby while you have an actual job.  A face could free up the resources easily enough, and maybe get a little mileage.  Just not much.

[Reaver]

You have to remember too DragginSPADE, you are talking 2 whole edition changes

Things are way different in 5e from 3e, just look at dicepools and target numbers. How combat runs now, VS how it did in 3e....

Some of these changes were in the name of simplifiation, some where to address 'balance issues'.

And lets be honest, magic really did need some balancing (coming from a guy with a 4300+ karma mage!).

Are things different? Yes. Does it make characters weaker then 3e? Too hard to say, what with the list of changes done...

[Bull]

Considering people still too frequently call Shadowrun "MagicRun" and complain about how OP magic is... 

It tends to be perception, IMO.  I've played a couple mages (Straight up spellslinger, and an Alchemy focused mage) and both were pretty viable but not overpowered.  But again, it's perception. 

Too many folks go in assuming you have to have 6's in appropriate skills to even be playable, and that you have to have high attributes.  But a character with 8-10 dice pool for their primary skill or two is supposed to be a skilled, viable character.  YOu don't need to start at 12+ and work your way up.

However, this depends a good deal on your GM and what he's throwing at you as well.  Your skills only need to be proportionate to the enemy.  So if you're feeling overwhelmed or like you're not useful because you don't have enough dice to regularly beat your opponents and challenges, talk to the GM, because he may simply be setting your thresholds and enemies at too high a level.

The game should be a challenge.  But it should also be fun.  It's the GMs job to find that balance.

[Reaver]

Bull, you hit it on the head with Dice Pools, and seen what you are saying, well every time someone posts a character to the forums

There does in fact seem to be a huge disconnect between players/Gms and 'acceptable' dice pools.

[DragginSPADE]

Bull,  I totally get what you're talking about with "good" skill levels being relative to the campaign difficulty.  Of two magicians I played back in the day one started as a street level shaman with pretty poor skills and about one or two starting spells.  Had a blast working my way up from there.

Logically, I understand that it's a new edition and things change.  But as I theory craft a character and realize I can't cover all of what I consider the essential "full magician" starting bases anymore my grognard hind-brain just starts screaming.   

Anyway, I was just curious if all the splitting of skills in the new editions was an attempt to deliberately de-power magic a bit or if someone thought it would add more flavor to characters to not all have the same proficiencies.

[Reaver]

More then a little bit of both would be my guess.

Remember, 4e started off as someone else's property (Fanpro). So the ideas behind the 4e (original) changes are lost to history (and those that made them).

A lot of 5e is about returning to some of the original flavors of SR1-3. Decks and Rigs being the two most obvious 'additions' to 5e that hark back to pre 4e roots. But the 2 system magic that was in place (namely the divide between Hermetics and Shamans) was thoughly shattered by 4e and the UMT.....

So what i think you see with the magic skill bloat is an attempt to both diversify magic power, and return some flavor to mahic through skill choices. No longer can you be a mage that excels at every aspect of magic right out of the gates..... but you CAN be an excellent Summoner, or Spellslinger, or Alchemist....

[Bull]

Yeah, once the idea to add alchemy to the game, and the magic rituals, it meant that magic skill groups needed rebalanced some, because we now had three focuses to magic rather than just two (With Enchanting being secondary thing). 

[Blue Rose]

Too many folks go in assuming you have to have 6's in appropriate skills to even be playable, and that you have to have high attributes.  But a character with 8-10 dice pool for their primary skill or two is supposed to be a skilled, viable character.  YOu don't need to start at 12+ and work your way up.

However, this depends a good deal on your GM and what he's throwing at you as well.  Your skills only need to be proportionate to the enemy.  So if you're feeling overwhelmed or like you're not useful because you don't have enough dice to regularly beat your opponents and challenges, talk to the GM, because he may simply be setting your thresholds and enemies at too high a level.

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.