[Cabral]

To be fair, 9/10 is a fraction.

To be fair, 10/9 is a fraction, but I'm not being helpful.

I am really interested to see how Mystic Adepts are handled. I hope they roll back from 5e where they are magicians who moonlight as adepts and go back to every other edition's variable levels of adeptness versus mageness. I would prefer that they are done well in an advanced book than mishandled again in the core book. Here's hoping.

[Ghost Rigger]

I am really interested to see how Mystic Adepts are handled. I hope they roll back from 5e where they are magicians who moonlight as adepts and go back to every other edition's variable levels of adeptness versus mageness. I would prefer that they are done well in an advanced book than mishandled again in the core book. Here's hoping.

All I want is to play a mystic adept who has watched way too much Dragon Ball and thinks he's a Saiyan. I need.....what? 4 spells for that? Lightning Bolt, Lightning Ball, Flight and Giant Monkey Form.

[easl]

Yes it's true that high initiative-jackers will have fewer actions than in 5e.  However, that's NOT the same thing as initiative-jackers not having any more actions in combat than everyone else.

They get fewer relative attacks. But it sounds to me that they have flexibility that other PCs are going to envy.  They can move in, then swing, then turn the reactor on Quade, then move out, all before the mage is says "I, uh, throw a powerball."  But if they don't need to do all that, they get the choice to swing twice instead, which the mage simply won't be able to do.

I'm reserving judgement, but it sounds to me like in SR6, wired folks might still be king of combat through superior tactics, rather than king of combat through attack flurrying.

 

[Shinobi Killfist]

5th edition a Street Sami with a typical 3 actions would down 3 Mooks up to rating 3 in a turn and take nothing to a few stun in return.  6th edition doesn't seem that is going to be the way it goes.  Too much incoming fire for too long, eventually your Defense test will fail you.

I don't see how this is the case. In SR5, after the street sam's first attack, all the mooks get to attack. In SR6, the street sam gets all his attacks first, and only then is it the mooks' turn. If the sam reliably kills a mook per attack, in SR5 he'd get attacked by 2 mooks, versus only 1 in SR6.

That's what I mean with the SR2 problem: fast street sams get all their attacks before anyone else gets a turn. It's less extreme than in SR2 because the street sam gets a maximum of 2 attacks rather than 3 or maybe 4.

Sure but it’s looking like all there actions is 1 attavk action in most cases.

Wired 1. 1 combat action
Wired 2 2 possible combat actions but only if you don’t need to do a single minor action like move in to hit them with their spurs or grab cover
Wired 3 if it’s just 1 minor action you need you get 2 combat actions.

Maybe they have cyber called something like reaction optimizer that lets you get a major for less minors. But as is your kick ass output as a sam seems pretty lame.

[easl]

What make 5e d&d so successful is the floor of effective build is very low. In other words it’s hard to make bad choices. Priority has always made it easy for players to make bad choices. Combine this with reduce action economy and your on the road to serious problems. What we say goes out to everyone, you like 6e fine. But don’t hide the flaws and don’t try to spin it.

Interesting take on it. I was actually thinking the reverse - that evening out the action economy between different builds is going to allow many more combat-effective builds. I guess we will have to see! Though maybe this is a tomato-tomahto issue; one person's "yay, my face doesn't have to hide behind the street sam while he rocks combat" is another person's "boo, the face no longer has to hide behind me while I rock combat."

[Marcus]

Sadly when it comes to systems questions like these, what ever the designers intent the min/maker will always min/max whatever the new system limits are. The people that end up suffer are those who don’t know systems newbies, those who just don’t have any interest in the system: the group of folks who in 5e think a primary dice pool of 8 is fine. When combat goes longer those not built for combat die first. As game theory tells us they will. There was never an issue with setting initiative limits but it’s going directly impacted how things play out. 10 gangers will probably be a major threat in 6. Where they would be warm up in 5. Guns maybe less powerful but is almost nonexistent. 6e will be radically different and not to benefit of the players.

[Michael Chandra]

Yes it's true that high initiative-jackers will have fewer actions than in 5e.  However, that's NOT the same thing as initiative-jackers not having any more actions in combat than everyone else.

They get fewer relative attacks. But it sounds to me that they have flexibility that other PCs are going to envy.  They can move in, then swing, then turn the reactor on Quade, then move out, all before the mage is says "I, uh, throw a powerball."  But if they don't need to do all that, they get the choice to swing twice instead, which the mage simply won't be able to do.

I'm reserving judgement, but it sounds to me like in SR6, wired folks might still be king of combat through superior tactics, rather than king of combat through attack flurrying.

Minor note: 1 Move action per turn max. But they also can take cover and call a shot and whatever.

[Marcus]

They get fewer relative attacks. But it sounds to me that they have flexibility that other PCs are going to envy.  They can move in, then swing, then turn the reactor on Quade, then move out, all before the mage is says "I, uh, throw a powerball."  But if they don't need to do all that, they get the choice to swing twice instead, which the mage simply won't be able to do.

I'm reserving judgement, but it sounds to me like in SR6, wired folks might still be king of combat through superior tactics, rather than king of combat through attack flurrying.

I suspect you will soon discover regardless of attempted spin that's not at all correct. What we took for granted in 5e, and had many more actions to accomplish will now be restrict and costed in 6e. No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again.  That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion). Movement in 5e is independent of all other actions and as far as we know it appears to be even more limited in 6e. With elimination of free actions, those things that were previously taken for granted will now be rolled into minor actions, and what is currently a simple action will most likely become minor actions as well. So now ALL actions will carry an action economy cost. Their elimination of complex and simple action into Attack actions and Minor actions. Isn't going to magically add to your list of possible tactics. In fact it will choke your options. What worse is it will almost certainly lead to wasted minors, as when you have to take 1 of those 4 minors to do something you will then lose your second attack and probably not have a use for the other 3 minors, which is even worse for player action economy.
This means longer fights, and all those issues I have previously raised.

Keeping in mind Dynamic Initiative was sold as a positive feature in 5e. 6e is flipping that, however how truly static it is, is actually very questionable as if you consult their list of Edge uses you will see it includes an initiate bonus.

[mcv]

No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again.  That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion).

What? NPCs play by the same rules as PCs. Comparing high initiative PCs with low initiative PCs is entirely relevant to comparing high or low initiative NPCs. There's nothing about this that inherently benefits NPCs more than PCs, all that matters is the difference between high initiative characters and low initiative characters, regardless of whether they're played by players or not.

And as I pointed out, with the new system, very high initiative characters can actually get more attacks in before low initiative characters finally get a turn, compared to the current system. Even a high initiative character can get multiple attacks against a nearly as high initiative character before the second one can respond, which is arguably even worse than the SR2 problem, where this would only happen against opponents with at least one initiative pass less.

I also worry about it feeling less like Shadowrun. But I do not worry about this benefiting NPCs more than PCs.

[Finstersang]

I suspect you will soon discover regardless of attempted spin that's not at all correct. What we took for granted in 5e, and had many more actions to accomplish will now be restrict and costed in 6e. No PC is gaining more actions under 6e, Across the board PC are losing them. The piece Michael didn't include in his little demonstration is the NPC actions. When CT2 begins NPC also go again.  That means NPC are going to go much more often then in previous editions (Thus the point of the discussion).

That´s nothing I´m too worried about, TBH. In previous Editions, NPC were either wired up or turned inot clay pidgeons after the first Initiative pass. Also, compared to 5th Edition, that one additional Major Action a wired PC can get actually means a lot now: In 5th Edition, any semi-competent Combatants could reliably acquire 2 Initiative passes, with a 3rd (and very rarely a 4th) for the really fast characters. Sammies with a second Major will go from a ratio of 3/2 to 2/1 Attacks against slower opponents. 

Movement in 5e is independent of all other actions and as far as we know it appears to be even more limited in 6e.

Movement being turned into an Action is a good idea, honestly. From my experiences, many players take it for granted that it works this way, even many veteran players kept making choices under the wrong assumption that Movement is part of the Action Economy.

With elimination of free actions, those things that were previously taken for granted will now be rolled into minor actions, and what is currently a simple action will most likely become minor actions as well. So now ALL actions will carry an action economy cost. Their elimination of complex and simple action into Attack actions and Minor actions. Isn't going to magically add to your list of possible tactics. In fact it will choke your options. What worse is it will almost certainly lead to wasted minors, as when you have to take 1 of those 4 minors to do something you will then lose your second attack and probably not have a use for the other 3 minors, which is even worse for player action economy.
This means longer fights, and all those issues I have previously raised.

That´s my concern as well, but your assumptions kinda work against themselfes here: Free Actions getting turned into Minor Actions lessen the chance that you will have to waste minors and make ID enhancements profitable even before hitting the magic 4 Minor threshold.

No question: This new system will be highly dependable on the number of usefull Minor Actions that you can take. If it´s all just situational stuff like reloading and everything impactfull gets turned into a Major Action, Players will find themselfes wasting Actions a lot (or desperately searching for Minor Actions to optimize their Action economy). I´ve heard somewhere (hopefully wrong, though...) that, f.i., drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action. No doubt, that would be a terrible choice with this new system...

I will probably houserule the Conversion rate to be 3 Minors into 1 Major at my tables, though. If the other wacky stuff in SR6 like the magic origami armor doesn´t totally put me off, that is

Keeping in mind Dynamic Initiative was sold as a positive feature in 5e. 6e is flipping that, however how truly static it is, is actually very questionable as if you consult their list of Edge uses you will see it includes an initiate bonus.

I´m wondering if they will also include an option to convert Edge into an additional Minor 
Would make +2 ID enhancements more valuable, as you are just one Minor Short for a second Attack.
If they don´t include it, that´s surely another idea for a Houserule.

[Hobbes]

I´ve heard somewhere (hopefully wrong, though...) that, f.i., drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action. No doubt, that would be a terrible choice with this new system...

That would be hilarious, optimized teams would consist of Mages and Unarmed builds.  Turn one, Increase Reflex Mage blast stuff, Punchy builds punch stuff, everyone else draw a weapon.  Turn two Fast Mages and Fast Punchy builds mop up.  Last bad guy standing surrenders. 

I would think ready a weapon would be a Minor, but who knows.

[Michael Chandra]

It sounds like something that could be a Major since it's a Simple. Maybe some stuff lets you turn it into a Minor.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I´ve heard somewhere (hopefully wrong, though...) that, f.i., drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action. No doubt, that would be a terrible choice with this new system...

That would be hilarious, optimized teams would consist of Mages and Unarmed builds.  Turn one, Increase Reflex Mage blast stuff, Punchy builds punch stuff, everyone else draw a weapon.  Turn two Fast Mages and Fast Punchy builds mop up.  Last bad guy standing surrenders. 

I would think ready a weapon would be a Minor, but who knows.

They could have got the rules wrong. But in play thing stated it was a major but can be turned into a minor with QuickDraw stuff.

[Redwulfe]

drawing a Weapon might be turned into a Major Action.

From what we have seen in the actual play this is the case. This however leaves room for fear and qualities to affect the action economy in very meaningful ways. For example a QuickDraw holster probably makes this a minor action.

[Shinobi Killfist]

While we really won’t know until we see the full system I’m not optimistic about the action economy  it doesn’t sound like it  feels like augmented humans vs sometimes unaugmented. Or feel like shadowrun. I’m solid with one pass per turn to speed things up and so the face gets a turn.  But that pass should be more impressive than this sounds if your reflexes are enhanced.

Especially with the loss of free actions. You don’t feel sped up because you did a bunch of invisible minor actions. Hey I aimed and called a shot. Yeah slightly more effective. But it’s just a bit more damage. It’s not gunning down 4 people in 3 seconds or even shooting the same person 4 times.

I’d of preferred something for one pass systems like you still have some free actions. You get a number of simple actions but they can compound into bigger actions. Like shoot person 1 simple. Shoot dude multiple times 2+ actions. Give bonus dice and make one roll. First shot hits rolled. Second shot hits rolled -1 hit etc. Another action can be shoot multiple targets. Those last two can be combined. Have each spell have a different number of actions required. Manabolt maybe 1 action while fireball might be 3. If you don’t have enough actions in a turn you can finish the spell in the next turn.

How many actions you get and the costs of the actions would be what play tests would be for. Though I’d make spells be the weakest method for multiple actions.