[Shinobi Killfist]

Dude spends all of his resources on fighting and everyone wants to be 90% of that for 1/10th the cost.

Sure, but what about for 99% of the cost?

Imagine a fight with two street samurai. One rolls 32 for initiative, the other rolls 31. The first will get two attacks on the other before the other has a chance to respond.

That's worse than 2nd edition, where these two would be alternating attacks before anyone else got a chance.

Of course street samurai should shine in combat. That's what they're for. But there's a limit to that. Over the course of a session, everybody should get their chance to shine in their thing, and with combat being a pretty big part of the game, not getting chance to do much for such a big part of the game would absolutely be a problem. SR6 tries to fix that by removing initiative passes, and that could be great, but if the result is that a combat specialist may even outshine another combat specialist who rolled one point lower on the one initiative roll they get per combat, I worry.

There no better judge than actual play of course. I hope they playtest this well.

I’m not as interested in one of fight results like street sam vs street sam as I am in the rules representing your overall effect in your specialty. Yes 2 shots before the other sam moves though you didn’t draw a gun, move, get cover etc. but potential 2 attacks against security guards va 3-4
Makes you seem basically mundane. A few extra minors sounds like basic combat training and not cyber speed stuff.

As for the time to shine. Combat plays as little or as much of a roll as you want. We have games with multiple fights, some with one fight and some with none. Usually depends on the story and how I’m trying to highlight a character. If he wants to add to a social scene he is taking a stat that has no other value to him and is taking away from his core role stats. He is picking up extra skills etc. I don’t expect people to do nothing in a fight but if they want to solidly contribute I expect they should devote enough resources to it. If the action economy isn’t working well enough a cheap cyberarm might get you 90% of the way to a street sam.


Maybe you’ll be able to farm enough bonus minor actions with ware in play to make it work. But the lack of free actions really makes me think even street sams will most likely just be attacking once as you’ll most likely always need 2 minors.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

My biggest goal was to not only make the matrix more user friendly and easier to understand for the average player who may or may not understand how real world cyber security works ...

I do not envy the position you are in.

In part because I found that the less you understood how real world cyber security worked, the easier it was to wrap your head around the Matrix in 5e.

Anyway, as a show of good faith I'll let you know what I will be looking at specifically in the Matrix rules of 6e. This is not an attempt to coax more information out of you (although I will gladly take some! ) but to let you get an idea of if I will find unfinished seams or not in what is written so far.

• Defense:  In 5e Deckers were originally described as the teams gear expert and protector.  Until Kill Code came out, they couldn't really do jack to protect gear.  (At least not any better than an unattended Fairlight Caliban could.)  So, I'll be looking specifically at what characters can do to prevent / spot / thwart hacking attempts against their gear.
• Detecting Hacking:  5e was written around the MARK method.  For all of it's flaws (mostly Action Economy), it was at the core of Matrix Defense.  There were four ways to know your gear was being hacked.  1)  A successful Attack action against it,  2)  A failed Sleaze action against it,  3)  Unrecognized MARKs on it, and 4)  It wasn't working as intended.  Kill Code introduced Matrix Actions that didn't require MARKs which was great for Action Economy, but wiped out 1/4 of the ways to notice hacking against your stuff, and the only way to detect hacking against you if the hacker was getting successful Sleaze Actions.  With 6e removing MARKs all together, I'll be looking hard at how noticable hacking is.
• Getting Lost in the Noise:  5e Matrix enabled anyone to grab "something about your persona" with a simple Matrix Perception test - that could be automatic if conditions were typical.  An example is commcode.  There wasn't anything in the published rules about changing commcode, leaving the ability to get "lost" without buying new gear completely in the hands of the GM.  Not a horrible thing, but there wasn't even a mention on if it could be done.
• In Game Usefulness:  It didn't take long for most people to catch on that having your gear Wireless On was a huge liability, and that running Wireless Off was the only real strategic choice.  That consequently made all those Wireless Bonuses mostly irrelevant, because none of them were worth the potential problems of leaving yourself open.  Is 6e the same?  Is there anything about the Matrix that makes it worthwhile to leave yourself open to it?
• Usage Space:  This is tied to the above.  One of my biggest WTF? moments is when I realized 5e was written in such a way as to make it impossible to do anything tech related without access to the Matrix.  Now, it fits in perfectly with the way the real world is going...  It just shattered my enjoyment of the 5e Matrix rules when I realized an average Joe Citizen couldn't even take a note (Edit File) on their commlink if they weren't connected to the Matrix.
• Multiple Persona Disorder:  Kill Code created the unfortunate reality that someone only ever has a single Persona.  Sure, you can change how it looks, but all the underlying code / information / authorization data / etc. remained the same.  I'm not entirely certain how you could erase that particular FUBAR moment...  However I will be looking to see if there is anything that states a character can have more than one Persona or not.
• Are Hosts Overpowered?:  5e had made the hosts out of the league of a most starting Deckers.  Which was kind of odd, since they were supposed to be able to slice hosts when they weren't being badasses at protecting your gear.  Are non-black site hosts more accesable to Deckers in 6e?
• How MAD are Deckers?:  This extends to skills as well.  5e Deckers were all over the map with what they needed.  3 Attributes, with another 2 or 3 being really good choices for them.  At least 5 skills...  It was crazy for them to get to the 12 to 16 average dice pool in everything they needed (because they had to be Jack of all Trades Matrix Jockeys because you never know what they will need to do).  Has this been addressed in 6e?

I'm sure there is more that I am forgetting, but this is what I could come up with now.

[Ghost Rigger]

crikey in 3E you needed something more powerful than an SMG to cause vehicular damage).

You went too far back.

In 5e a Hold Out pistol can reliably damage many stock vehicles.  A hold out pistol is DV 6, with 1 Net Hit required to to even have a chance of triggering a Damage Resistance Test, makes it a minimum of DV 7.

Many stock vehicles have 6 Armor or less (let's take the Shin-Hyung as an example) meaning if the Hold Out pistol hits, it triggers a Damage Resistance Test against a minimum DV of 7.  With 16 dice (stock Shin-Hyung has 10 Body, 6 Armor) the vehicle is very likely going to suffer at least 2 damage.  And at 1425 Nuyen per box of damage repair, that is a repair bill of at least 2850 Nuyen.  From a Hold Out pistol.

Stock vehicles are for basic bitches.

Depending on whether they went with concealed or standard armor, a modified Shin-Hyung is going to have 9 or 11 Armor, which moves the minimum required hits up to 4 or 6, unless you're using a Walther, in which case it's 3 or 5. In either case, stock hold-outs just don't have the accuracy necessary to damage the Shin-Hyung with standard armor, requiring either Take Aim actions or an internal smartgun system. Assuming those are in place, we can look at the expected damage: minimum DV of 10 vs 19 dice means 4 expected damage and minimum DV of 12 vs 21 dice means 5 expected damage. However, this damage is far less likely to have occurred in the first place, because these are not at all easy shots to make.

Moving onto the example of Toyota Gopher vs Ares Predator, a modified Gopher will have an armor of 14 or 17, requiring the Predator to get 6 or 9 hits. Base accuracy of a Predator is 7 when you include the smartgun system, so let's assume modifications, Take Aim actions or some combination thereof are used in the latter case. That means we're looking at minimum DV 14 vs 27 dice for 5 expected damage and minimum DV of 17 vs 30 dice for 7 expected damage. However, these are very, very difficult shots to make, and it would be far easier to damage the Gopher if the Predator is using APDS. In that case, the Predator only needs 2 or 5 hits, so we see minimum DV 10 vs 23 dice for 3 expected damage and minimum DV 13 vs 26 dice for 5 expected damage. However, damaging the Gopher with standard armor remains a tricky shot to pull off.

Now let me introduce a new example, the Ares Roadmaster. 18 Body, 18 stock Armor which can be bumped up to 24 concealed or 27 standard. An Ares Predator with APDS would need 6 hits to damage even the base model, so the weapon in this example will be the Ares Alpha, with DV 11 and a base AP of -2. It has a base accuracy of 7 when used with smartlink, but getting a custom grip is cheap and easy so let's bump that up to 8. With standard ammunition, it takes the Alpha 6, 12 and 15 hits to damage the stock, concealed and standard armor configurations respectively. The latter two are absurdly difficult, so we can only examine the first: minimum 17 DV vs 34 dice for 6 expected damage, and that is on a very tricky shot. Load the Alpha with APDS, and then it becomes a matter of getting 2, 8 and 11 hits to achieve damage. 11 is still absurdly difficult, so let's look at the stock and concealed scenarios: minimum DV 13 vs 30 dice for 3 expected damage and Minimum DV 19 vs 36 dice for 7 expected damage. The latter is achieved only with a very, very difficult shot. Damaging the standard armor Roadmaster is probably outside the scope of this argument.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

I was waiting for someone to foolishly bring up upgrading the armor on vehicles.

Sure, it helps lock out lower damage weapons from damaging the vehicle.

The double edged sword effect is that when the arms race catches up to you, and you get up to the weapons that can reliably do any damage (Shotguns, Assault Cannons, Sniper Rifles, Grenades, Explosives) they are doing tremendous amounts of damage that outstrip your vehicles ability to soak the extra damage.

Add to that that more armor increases the cost of the vehicle, and that increases the cost for repairs.

So, let's take a Roadmaster as an example.
18 Body, 27 Armor.
We will use a basic, off-the-shelf Panther XXL Assault Cannon
17 DV, -6 AP

Not terribly likely a successful attack will land, but 5 Net Hits isn't against possibility with a base Accuracy of 7.

22 DV versus Body of 18 + Armor of 21.  39 Dice to resist when you statistically need around 66 to stop all damage.
You will get about 13 Resistance reducing that damage down to 9.  Which will cost you 25,425 Nuyen to repair.
The kicker is, if you went with Concealed Armor, you would take more damage and spend more Nuyen per box than with standard.  (This is based on a Roadmaster that only has the armor upgrade, not any of the other neat stuff people want.)

[Banshee]

My biggest goal was to not only make the matrix more user friendly and easier to understand for the average player who may or may not understand how real world cyber security works ...

I do not envy the position you are in.

In part because I found that the less you understood how real world cyber security worked, the easier it was to wrap your head around the Matrix in 5e.

Anyway, as a show of good faith I'll let you know what I will be looking at specifically in the Matrix rules of 6e. This is not an attempt to coax more information out of you (although I will gladly take some! ) but to let you get an idea of if I will find unfinished seams or not in what is written so far.

• Defense:  In 5e Deckers were originally described as the teams gear expert and protector.  Until Kill Code came out, they couldn't really do jack to protect gear.  (At least not any better than an unattended Fairlight Caliban could.)  So, I'll be looking specifically at what characters can do to prevent / spot / thwart hacking attempts against their gear.
• Detecting Hacking:  5e was written around the MARK method.  For all of it's flaws (mostly Action Economy), it was at the core of Matrix Defense.  There were four ways to know your gear was being hacked.  1)  A successful Attack action against it,  2)  A failed Sleaze action against it,  3)  Unrecognized MARKs on it, and 4)  It wasn't working as intended.  Kill Code introduced Matrix Actions that didn't require MARKs which was great for Action Economy, but wiped out 1/4 of the ways to notice hacking against your stuff, and the only way to detect hacking against you if the hacker was getting successful Sleaze Actions.  With 6e removing MARKs all together, I'll be looking hard at how noticable hacking is.
• Getting Lost in the Noise:  5e Matrix enabled anyone to grab "something about your persona" with a simple Matrix Perception test - that could be automatic if conditions were typical.  An example is commcode.  There wasn't anything in the published rules about changing commcode, leaving the ability to get "lost" without buying new gear completely in the hands of the GM.  Not a horrible thing, but there wasn't even a mention on if it could be done.
• In Game Usefulness:  It didn't take long for most people to catch on that having your gear Wireless On was a huge liability, and that running Wireless Off was the only real strategic choice.  That consequently made all those Wireless Bonuses mostly irrelevant, because none of them were worth the potential problems of leaving yourself open.  Is 6e the same?  Is there anything about the Matrix that makes it worthwhile to leave yourself open to it?
• Usage Space:  This is tied to the above.  One of my biggest WTF? moments is when I realized 5e was written in such a way as to make it impossible to do anything tech related without access to the Matrix.  Now, it fits in perfectly with the way the real world is going...  It just shattered my enjoyment of the 5e Matrix rules when I realized an average Joe Citizen couldn't even take a note (Edit File) on their commlink if they weren't connected to the Matrix.
• Multiple Persona Disorder:  Kill Code created the unfortunate reality that someone only ever has a single Persona.  Sure, you can change how it looks, but all the underlying code / information / authorization data / etc. remained the same.  I'm not entirely certain how you could erase that particular FUBAR moment...  However I will be looking to see if there is anything that states a character can have more than one Persona or not.
• Are Hosts Overpowered?:  5e had made the hosts out of the league of a most starting Deckers.  Which was kind of odd, since they were supposed to be able to slice hosts when they weren't being badasses at protecting your gear.  Are non-black site hosts more accesable to Deckers in 6e?
• How MAD are Deckers?:  This extends to skills as well.  5e Deckers were all over the map with what they needed.  3 Attributes, with another 2 or 3 being really good choices for them.  At least 5 skills...  It was crazy for them to get to the 12 to 16 average dice pool in everything they needed (because they had to be Jack of all Trades Matrix Jockeys because you never know what they will need to do).  Has this been addressed in 6e?

I'm sure there is more that I am forgetting, but this is what I could come up with now.

I will try to address your points as best as I cam
Defense - yes a properly equipped decker will far outshine someone with just a commlink  for matrix defense .. so without a decker (or TM) on your side you will be leaving yourself pretty vulnerable to being hacked ... that leaves how you equip yourself as being the limiter on how detrimental that is
Detect Hacking - still basically the same thing but there really only 2 things now that matter ... any attack action or a failed sleaze action
Getting Lost - still nothing specific in the matrix rules, though going "off the grid" and laying low should be better handled by the Heat mechanic
Wireless - wireless bonuses are still a thing and will probably be just as impactful if you are paranoid about being hacked ... most of the bonuses feed into the action economy (effectively making certain minor actions a "free" action by giving you a bonus minor action ... ie changing a clip with a smartgun"
Usage - this is more of a misconception I think... you can (and could in 5E) still access a device in your possession without connecting to the matrix just like in today's world your typical smartphone has a limited amount of functionality even with no signal but connecting to the matrix increases that functionality exponentially. There are no specific rules that state how useful something is without a matrix connection one way or another and should be handled with common sense.
MPD - we don't specifically address this either but it intended that for a decker (or any typical matrix user except techomancers) your persona is generated by your gear so regardless of what it looks like unless you change gear it will have the same underlying code just like in KillCode
Hosts - they can be as nasty or as easy as the GM wants them to be it is all based on what they set the base Host rating as
How MAD are deckers - well that will ultimately come down to play style but for 95% of what a decker is intended to do you only need 2 attributes and 2 skills

[Ghost Rigger]

The double edged sword effect is that when the arms race catches up to you

IF the arms race catches up to you. Depending what vehicle and armor type you choose, you can lock out a lot of weapons and proactively avoid the ones that can actually harm your vehicle. And even if you find yourself on the receiving end of military-grade firepower, you can still dodge the worst of it. Assault cannons are actually the worst of any of the options you could've listed, as they require the shooter to still have 5 net hits after I've rolled my defense pool.

Wireless - wireless bonuses are still a thing and will probably be just as impactful if you are paranoid about being hacked ... most of the bonuses feed into the action economy (effectively making certain minor actions a "free" action by giving you a bonus minor action ... ie changing a clip with a smartgun"

Please don't make this mistake again. Making everything wireless just to give hackers something to hack is demeaning to the playerbase.

[Marcus]

feel versus actual comes done to a simple choice of GM and Player style is where I come from with my statement. If you feel that a character that only average 12-14 ( and not the 20+) dice to accomplish anything they need to do as a focus of your archehtype then yes TM's are unplayable in 5E. I was not involved in the design of 5E but I have spent a lot of time conversing with those that did and it was built on a probability curve that was based on the average player dice pool would be 12-16 dice. Regardless though the biggest issue with TM's in 5 was the simple fact that they were confusing and misunderstood by the average player.

My biggest goal was to not only make the matrix more user friendly and easier to understand for the average player who may or may not understand how real world cyber security works ... and hopefully I succeeded but that judgement will have to wait until enough people have seen the new stuff and I can get feedback, but so far the limited feedback I have is positive. As for techno's though I was much more limited in page count, so all I could really do is lay the ground work for future expansions to build on but the base rules are built that a TM can be on even footing with a decker unless they decide to specialize in a different direction ... for example if you want to be a full on techinorigger you're going to have to the pay the price of specializing in that direction (you can you around with being a passable yet limited  rigger fairly easy)

I do appreciate your reply Banshee, my question was intended as  speaking more of the 6e system in general, but in re-reading it I clearly failed to make that point at all clear. So I'll address the points you raised. I follow how they went out their way to tune TM math to a very exact range, which is why CF look so weird compared to spells. However that strongly suggest ether the left hand wasn't talking to the right hand, a priority choice was made, or some combination of the two. When players sat down to math out 5e matrix with the two roles doing the same thing. One had less dice with greater risk verses another that did the same job with more dice and less risk, so by definition had a meaningfully higher probability of success. They couldn't make the argument that the first archetype was functional. That of course isn't even considering the editing errors that plagued the first printing. 

[Shinobi Killfist]

I’m not a fan of the wireless bonuses. I’d prefer just making everything hackable and instead of a wireless bonus sentence a sentence explaining how it can be hacked. Wireless bonuses add too much work for me as a GM as I juggle if they should be on or not. Am I giving too much or too little for the decker to do etc.

[Banshee]

I do appreciate your reply Banshee, my question was intended as  speaking more of the 6e system in general, but in re-reading it I clearly failed to make that point at all clear. So I'll address the points you raised. I follow how they went out their way to tune TM math to a very exact range, which is why CF look so weird compared to spells. However that strongly suggest ether the left hand wasn't talking to the right hand, a priority choice was made, or some combination of the two. When players sat down to math out 5e matrix with the two roles doing the same thing. One had less dice with greater risk verses another that did the same job with more dice and less risk, so by definition had a meaningfully higher probability of success. They couldn't make the argument that the first archetype was functional. That of course isn't even considering the editing errors that plagued the first printing.

See I think it is a matter of somatics we are "arguing" over then, I agree with what you are saying is the root problem (and made some changes to correct that very issue) but the difference isn't that it makes technomancers nonfunctional or even ineffective ... what it do was make them a less desirable choice because they could get to decker levels of dice pools without hyperfocusing. In my opinion less desirable does not make them unplayable or nonfunctional, and that is why say it is a perceived concept versus actual problem.

I know this was done on purpose in 5E because they felt TM's would be too powerful when combined with the other options available to them. In 6E I made techno's more of a generalist (I think, but we shall see how it plays out when "you guys" get to open up that tool chest) that could then specialize differently then a decker if they so choose. A starting right out of the gate basic non-specialized decker and technomancer should be pretty close to equals if you say for example keep the same priorities for race, attributes, and skills but just swap out the resonance for gear. I know my test builds did.

[Banshee]

I’m not a fan of the wireless bonuses. I’d prefer just making everything hackable and instead of a wireless bonus sentence a sentence explaining how it can be hacked. Wireless bonuses add too much work for me as a GM as I juggle if they should be on or not. Am I giving too much or too little for the decker to do etc.

for what it's worth I agree, but there are more than my voice making the decisions on how things ended up 

[Shinobi Killfist]

On the decker vs technomancer thing. I think technomancers ended up being non viable because the setting examples of security for matrix defense actually required high end decker pools. So smaller pools by a technomancer ended up being non functional for their core role. I’m sure you could advance to a point it worked. But until then you couldn’t hack the things a matrix specialist should hack for a team.

As a gm ive consistently dropped the oppositions dice pools by quite a few dice so the technomancer who is there only matrix dude make it.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

I will try to address your points as best as I can

Thank you very much.  I appreciate the response.

I will be flat out honest with you.  Some of what you said in your post sounds really good (Deckers can actually do something to protect gear, if they so choose; greatly reduced MADness), some is questionable - probably due to me not grasping your meaning, or not being able to see the actual mechanic in writing (It sounds like a player is completely at the mercy of a hacker succeeding at Sleaze actions against them, Heat mechanic), and some doesn't sound so good - those are primarily due to restrictions you were required to work within.

One point is confusing enough to me that I need to ask a follow up question:

Persona are tied to devices?  Are you saying that if Character A "logs in" (or whatever you wish to call it) to Commlink A their persona is one collection of data, and then if they log into Deck B their persona is effectively different?

That works against what I understand to be the Shadowrun Matrix after Crash 2.0.
My understanding (and I am willing to wager it is wrong, after your posts) is that a persons Persona is their ID essentially.  If I go to work for MagaCorp they tie my Persona into their security system, rather than issue me an ID card.  If my Persona differs (beyond just visually) with different devices, that would seriously hinder the ability for a character to change devices.  Either MegaCorp would have to "log" (for lack of a better term) all of my Personas, or I would have to jump through some serious hoops to switch devices if my commlink gets stolen, dropped, etc..

It makes me believe I'm not really grasping how the Matrix and Personas are intended to work.  And my understanding is based on what is published in 5e.  If I am off base, hopefully 6e will clear that up.

[Banshee]

Persona are tied to devices?  Are you saying that if Character A "logs in" (or whatever you wish to call it) to Commlink A their persona is one collection of data, and then if they log into Deck B their persona is effectively different?

That works against what I understand to be the Shadowrun Matrix after Crash 2.0.
My understanding (and I am willing to wager it is wrong, after your posts) is that a persons Persona is their ID essentially.  If I go to work for MagaCorp they tie my Persona into their security system, rather than issue me an ID card.  If my Persona differs (beyond just visually) with different devices, that would seriously hinder the ability for a character to change devices.  Either MegaCorp would have to "log" (for lack of a better term) all of my Personas, or I would have to jump through some serious hoops to switch devices if my commlink gets stolen, dropped, etc..

It makes me believe I'm not really grasping how the Matrix and Personas are intended to work.  And my understanding is based on what is published in 5e.  If I am off base, hopefully 6e will clear that up.

and to be equally honest right back, I don't give much credence to the fluff and lore of the metaplots (so I may be completely off base too) so I only interpret the rules as presented and any inconsistencies in the fluff can be handled however people want so how a persona is represented behind the scenes doesn't matter as far as the rules go ... but they way I saw things is that a personsa is basically the equivalent of your internet signature which means it is a function of both your username and passwords (IE how you look to the rest of the matrix) and then your operating system, platform, and IP address (basically your software and hardware/gear) ... that means yes there are some things you can change easily enough but as long as you are tied to gear there some aspects that are hardwired in

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

The bit of lore in 5th edition about how your persona's digital forensics never change, even across devices, was well beyond the focus of that edition's core rulebook.  And since 6th's is a good bit slimmer than 5th's, that degree of hair-splitting is pretty safely in the realm of GM perogative/future matrix books.

[Hobbes]

See I think it is a matter of somatics we are "arguing" over then, I agree with what you are saying is the root problem (and made some changes to correct that very issue) but the difference isn't that it makes technomancers nonfunctional or even ineffective ... what it do was make them a less desirable choice because they could get to decker levels of dice pools without hyperfocusing. In my opinion less desirable does not make them unplayable or nonfunctional, and that is why say it is a perceived concept versus actual problem.

Sorry, but you activated my .... well actually negative quality, feel free to ignore me.  But a rating 6 Host, with Max Firewall has 15 Dice.  A well built Decker could handle it, maybe spend a few edge if there were several things to do, but could git er done.  A really min/maxed Technomancer is going to have 14 Dice or so, and probably less Edge than the Decker.  With Direct Access they'll get a Mark on the Host.... and then they're probably screwed as most anything they'll need to do still goes against the Hosts stats. 

Local Corporate Hosts start at Rating 7.  Technomancers were pretty well screwed out of the gate.  It wasn't a perception problem in so much as it was 14 is less than 17 and Hacking required so many successful tests to get anything useful done.  It just wasn't a playerbase perception problem, Technomancers struggled to do the job they were supposed to do and were the weakest Archetype outside their specialty outside of very focused or exotic builds requiring a high degree of system mastery.

Thank you so very much for your hard work, and taking the time to answer a never ending stream of questions.