[MercilessMing]

The fundamental assumption of AR v DR doesn’t hold up, why have a system where pretty much all it does is nothing? Even the majority of CRB examples include AR V DR doing nothing. Fixing that is going to require a broad spectrum of changes as it touch’s a lot of things.

I like the concept of AR vs DR for the medium-crunch system I think they're trying to make, but they messed up in two ways.  One, you mentioned, it doesn't matter.  Most of the time AR/DR is in the +-4 range, and when it's outside that, the award is edge, which doesn't matter enough for modeling armor.  The second is that it has no clear metaphor.  They treated AR like a rug to sweep all the little gun stuff under.  It's simultaneously armor penetration and accuracy.  So we're left in a place where APDS and Flechette ammo are almost mechanically identical.

They have already issued a lot of errata and have LOT more to go. Re-writing the CRB is what’s needed.

It really is.  If they don't have a technical writer, maybe they should consider one.  There's so much ambiguity and inconsistency that needs to be cleaned up.

[Michael Chandra]

For those who say 'AR vs DR usually doesn't matter', I remind you of the mods to increase AR, the firing modes which sacrifice AR, and Cover which impacts both evasive pool and DR, plus it no longer penalizes you by causing a hit on a tie, since ties always hit now. Once you start adding Cover into the equation, those AR/DR comparisons will definitely change.

Another thing to remember is that armor mods are now exhaustive. This makes the capacity extra important.

I can imagine people saying 'I want armor to do more', even though I'm fine with the damage rebalancing, but armor definitely still has impact now.

[Trigger Lynx]

The fundamental assumption of AR v DR doesn’t hold up, why have a system where pretty much all it does is nothing? Even the majority of CRB examples include AR V DR doing nothing. Fixing that is going to require a broad spectrum of changes as it touch’s a lot of things.

I like the concept of AR vs DR for the medium-crunch system I think they're trying to make, but they messed up in two ways.  One, you mentioned, it doesn't matter.  Most of the time AR/DR is in the +-4 range, and when it's outside that, the award is edge, which doesn't matter enough for modeling armor.  The second is that it has no clear metaphor.  They treated AR like a rug to sweep all the little gun stuff under.  It's simultaneously armor penetration and accuracy.  So we're left in a place where APDS and Flechette ammo are almost mechanically identical.

They have already issued a lot of errata and have LOT more to go. Re-writing the CRB is what’s needed.

It really is.  If they don't have a technical writer, maybe they should consider one.  There's so much ambiguity and inconsistency that needs to be cleaned up.

I agree with this, Ming. From the (admittedly little) testing I've done with AR vs DR in combat scenarios, it seems that the system is moot. Regardless of cover, smartlinks, ammo, or Minor Action buffs, the +/- 4 threshhold really doesn't matter. You either hit or you miss, with the Secondary Effects (and the armor Mods used to negate them) being a far more important factor. Personally, I like high-lethality combat in SR, but with armor playing little to no role in defense it seems the Edge gain is just a pointless concession.

As for re-writes, I certainly hope that happens. I've read posts from one of the developers stating his intent for certain rules (which totally make sense and would be a much better alternative to what we have to work with now) that were disregarded and either replaced with poorly edited copypasta from previous editions or just outright nonsense. You can't expect to compartmentalize a working rule set by not playtesting it and/or giving editorial powers to a single person.

[Michael Chandra]

I consider SR6 far less lethal than SR5 myself. And so far players at open events love gathering Edge to then use it or pass it on at crucial points. So my anecdotal evidence disagrees with your testing I fear.

[Michael Chandra]

Since I had some spare time, I decided to map out a scenario for 'default' combat: Facing 5 SWAT members with Predators.

Let's look at an Ares Predator with APDS: 8+(1+)P/-5, with 1 net hit for all following averages.
F: Face at a party: Let's say 16 soak dice (Body 3, max armor tricks for 13, no armor/soak augmentations).
S: Augmented char: Let's say 23 soak dice (Body 3, Armor 12, BDA4, OS4 = how my char was built once).
T: Tank: Let's say 38 soak dice (B6, A24, +8 from augmentations).

F: Average 5.33 damage, 47.26% chance at 6+ damage, 0.14% chance at 0 damage.
S: Average 3.06 damage, 10.17% chance at 6+ damage, 10.76% chance at 0 damage.
T: Average 0.34 damage, 0.13% chance at 6+ damage, 82.12% chance at 0 damage.

SR6, Ares Predator with Explosive Ammo = 4+(0+)P damage, let's still assume 1 net hit (even though a tie also hits) for 5P.
F: 3 soak dice
S: 7 soak dice
T: 10 soak dice

F: Average 4 damage, 29.63% chance at 5 damage, 0 chance at 0 damage.
S: Average 2.67 damage, 5.85% chance at 5 damage, 4.53% chance at 0 damage.
T: Average 1.77 damage, 1.73% chance at 5 damage, 21.31% chance at 0 damage.

Everyone except for the superheavy-armour people went down average damage-wise.

Now let's look at how we'd handle 5 grunts firing at you:
SR5: Attack at -0, -1, -2, -3, -4 defense dice. Need 1 net hit to hit.
SR6: Attack at +2 attack dice. Needs to at least tie to hit.

If we assume you face Organized Crime, they have 10 offense dice in SR5, 6 in SR6. Let's assume in SR5, you'd give SWAT the same stats, in SR6 they're their own PR so they have 7 offense dice, and 5 grunts combined adds 2 dice.

Let's look at defense pools Low: 6, Decent: 10, High: 15, and see what the chances to get hit are (we're ignoring damage numbers for now, since to run the full math would be more a nightmare). Remember that in SR6, ties hit:
SR5 L: 10 vs 6/5/4/3/2 = average hitchance 398.13%, aka 79,63% per attack.
SR5 M: 10 vs 10/9/8/7/6 = average hitchance 267.33%, aka 53.47% per attack.
SR5 H: 10 vs 15/14/13/12/11 = average hitchance 184.89%, aka 36.98% per attack.
SR6 L: 9 vs 6 = average 79.44% hitchance
SR6 M: 9 vs 6 = average 53.29% hitchance
SR6 H: 9 vs 6 = average 25.90% hitchance

So damage numbers from highest-damage Ares Predator are down for everyone except the tank, variation is less so less 'bam you're down' odds, and you only face 1 attack so you face roughly the same average hit chance but only 1 attack instead of 5 in SR6. In other words, if you face a large group of grunts, survival rates against focused fire are much better in SR6 than in SR5.

In SR5 we could add partial cover (+2 dice but ties hit) and Full Defense (depending on qualities +4~+9), in SR6 we can add cover II (+2 dice, ties already hit) and an evade action (depends on your Athletics skill, so 6 an option for specialized chars), but by then you're also going to be facing higher pools eventually so I'm not going to bother mapping that out.

Furthermore, we could include burst fire (wide bursts ruin defense pools in SR5, no such mechanic in SR6 yet), or bring out the Ares Alphas (3.33 damage extra if we ignore full-soaks scenarios, vs 1 damage extra) and Barretts (+5.67 damage vs +2 damage), which were basically 'how do we hurt the tank' solutions that ended up having a good chance at one-shotting any non-combat-heavy char.

All said and done, I think SR6's solution of cutting out armor and reducing damage numbers, is in fact a less-lethal system. The reliance on net hits is much bigger too, due to far less variation on the soak results. And any kind of large group will be far less lethal due to the grunt combined-attack rules.

I understand some people want armor to have more impact, but I wouldn't throw that into the soak rolls, exactly because the current balance means you can have a non-optimal character actually survive a few rounds of combat now. Me, I'd start employing armor boost on resisting any contact toxins instead (after halving Toxins, since Toxins/Hardened/Grenades got missed in the lethality nerf).

Anecdotal: In SR5 I had some crooks with Alphas focus fire on a Troll who wasn't a Tank but a scrawny 'I 2-hit a Roadmaster' instead, all three attacks hit him and he went unconscious on the third. In SR6, he'd only have taken the one attack and still have stood as a result. Nevermind that keeping more defense dice might have helped him evade, and lower damage numbers also would have helped his defense odds, so even attacking 3x instead of 1 grunt attack would have improved his odds.

[penllawen]

In SR5 I had some crooks with Alphas focus fire on a Troll who wasn't a Tank but a scrawny 'I 2-hit a Roadmaster' instead, all three attacks hit him and he went unconscious on the third. In SR6, he'd only have taken the one attack and still have stood as a result.

Your entire argument rests on the grunt mechanics in 6e. If you re-run your numbers without using them you’ll have a very different conclusion. Hence, I conclude the decision to apply - or not apply - the grunt mechanic is crucial to determining lethality of an encounter.

How, then, do you square that with RAW, which says:

To speed up combat a little, we recommend that grunts attack as a group or groups rather than as a series of individuals. This saves on dice rolls while also showing the greater chance of success with a group working together. The gamemaster chooses the size of the grunt groups, usually grouping them by who they're attacking and/or type of attack. If four Lone Star troopers have clubs out and two have drawn their guns, the four club wielders work together, while the pistol packers pair up on the perp of their choice.

There is no advice here that grunts are important for balance. It is presented as a pure speed up option, for GMs to apply or not, according to their desire for this particular combat.

I think the way the grunt rules are presented, it’s a perfectly valid choice for a GM to not apply them to, say, a two-NPCs-versus-one-PC encounter. But if they do so, your “SR6 is less lethal” conclusion no longer holds.

[PMárk]

Honestly, the one thing I don't get is 'why'? Why the devs thought that armor not adding to soak and Str not contributing to damage were a good idea? It's not like these things would have added a lot of complexity, or bogged down the game. All it needs is just a re-calculation of the DVs.

I can understand if the intent was really making the whole thing about AR/DR and Edge and getting rid of floating modifiers (though I don't really think the end result is much less complex, or easier on newcomers, who need to memorize all the Edge effects and action, though yes, it's less math-heavy), but then, why make the impact so minor as getting only 1 edge?

It just doesn't make sense, what was the intent behind all of this. It could be a working system, with all the initial premises and core concepts, but without these illogical choices.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

"Why doesn't armor add to soak?" is a question that lots of people ask.  I ask, "Why does it have to?"

Armor in 5e/4e did indeed add to soak pools. The past 2 editions probably cover many contemporary Shadowrun fans' experience with the TTRPG, and for those who've played longer well the past 15 years or so are fresher in our minds than the 15 years that preceded them.

But in 2e/3e, armor very much did NOT add to soak pools. And this is relevant, because 3e is (in my anecdotal experience trawling the Shadowrun fan sites on the interwebz) commonly cited as being one of the "Best" editions of Shadowrun, ever.

Back where it all started, in 1e armor didn't technically add to soak pools, but it did add its rating as automatic successes ON the soak pool... so I can't really fairly say armor didn't "add to soak pools" in 1e.  OTOH, and this is important, back in 1st thru 3rd editions you didn't reduce damage with successes in the soak pool on a 1 for 1 basis.  In 1e, it could take as many as 3 or 4 successes to reduce damage (it was a static 'staging' of 2 in 2nd and 3rd ed). Also bear in mind that 1st edition was supplanted by 2nd edition in very short order... this state where armor added automatic successes to the soak pool is almost a footnote in Shadowrun's history.

TL;DR: History lesson on Armor in Shadowrun's various editions: 1st, 4th, 5th: Armor contributed to the soak pool.  2nd, 3rd, and yes 6th: It does not contribute to the soak pool.  Moral: You don't NEED to have armor contribute to the soak pool in order for Shadowrun to "make sense" or "be good".

[GuardDuty]

Come on, now, SSDR, you know that's kind of a disingenuous thing to say.  You know the complaint about 6e armor is that it doesn't directly contribute to damage resistance, and you're making it sound like 2e and 3e were the same, when they most definitely were not.  Your armor value directly--directly--reduced your target number to resist damage.  It would be fairly difficult to get more than a scratch from a hold-out pistol in a reasonable amount of armor, for example.  The only thing I can think of that circumvented that completely is (some) spells.  This is not the same thing as adding dice to a resistance test, but it is essentially a form of "soak", i.e. damage resistance, that is objective and reliable.

[Banshee]

"Why doesn't armor add to soak?" is a question that lots of people ask.  I ask, "Why does it have to?"

Armor in 5e/4e did indeed add to soak pools. The past 2 editions probably cover many contemporary Shadowrun fans' experience with the TTRPG, and for those who've played longer well the past 15 years or so are fresher in our minds than the 15 years that preceded them.

But in 2e/3e, armor very much did NOT add to soak pools. And this is relevant, because 3e is (in my anecdotal experience trawling the Shadowrun fan sites on the interwebz) commonly cited as being one of the "Best" editions of Shadowrun, ever.

Back where it all started, in 1e armor didn't technically add to soak pools, but it did add its rating as automatic successes ON the soak pool... so I can't really fairly say armor didn't "add to soak pools" in 1e.  OTOH, and this is important, back in 1st thru 3rd editions you didn't reduce damage with successes in the soak pool on a 1 for 1 basis.  In 1e, it could take as many as 3 or 4 successes to reduce damage (it was a static 'staging' of 2 in 2nd and 3rd ed). Also bear in mind that 1st edition was supplanted by 2nd edition in very short order... this state where armor added automatic successes to the soak pool is almost a footnote in Shadowrun's history.

TL;DR: History lesson on Armor in Shadowrun's various editions: 1st, 4th, 5th: Armor contributed to the soak pool.  2nd, 3rd, and yes 6th: It does not contribute to the soak pool.  Moral: You don't NEED to have armor contribute to the soak pool in order for Shadowrun to "make sense" or "be good".

It's important to note that while 3E did not add armor to soak it did reduce the power of the attack by the armor rating ... so armor did very much play a part in damage mitigation.

However... you can extend that very principle to 6E by realizing that all damage values were lowered to offset the lower soak pools ... in essence this means that all armor has a "built in" damage reduction that is equal across the board. The only place this breaks down is unarmored targets ... but for small price of unarmed targets gaining benefits it's not a bad design choice.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Come on, now, SSDR, you know that's kind of a disingenuous thing to say.  You know the complaint about 6e armor is that it doesn't directly contribute to damage resistance, and you're making it sound like 2e and 3e were the same, when they most definitely were not.  Your armor value directly--directly--reduced your target number to resist damage.  It would be fairly difficult to get more than a scratch from a hold-out pistol in a reasonable amount of armor, for example.  The only thing I can think of that circumvented that completely is (some) spells.  This is not the same thing as adding dice to a resistance test, but it is essentially a form of "soak", i.e. damage resistance, that is objective and reliable.

The point is armor can help without adding to a soak pool.  Do we disagree that in 2e/3e armor helped without adding to a soak pool?  I hope not.

Whether 6we's version of armor helps enough is opinion.  Granted, an opinion that lots of people say is "No".  I'm not talking about opinion in this train of discussion... it's not opinion that armor's mechanical impact is less than it was in 4e/5e.  It's opinion as to whether or not that's a "good thing", and people who disagree about that opinion won't change each others' minds.

So that's all beside the point.  I was addressing "Why doesn't armor add to soak in 6e?".  I was saying "armor doesn't HAVE to." And that "It didn't help with soak for a very large swath of Shadowrun's history, as a matter of fact."

It's important to note that while 3E did not add armor to soak it did reduce the power of the attack by the armor rating ... so armor did very much play a part in damage mitigation.

This is of course the answer to "Well, why can't we just have armor work like 2e/3e in 6we?"  Target Numbers for successes have in effect all been pegged at "5" ever since 4e, and 6we didn't undo that.  So while armor doesn't necessarily have to give you bonus dice to soak with, we still can't have it lower the number you need on each die to score a hit.

Another key factor, btw, is 2e/3e had the concept of a Combat Pool which could be allocated towards soak.  6we's Edge works like a reimaged Combat Pool.  So there IS that callback to Shadowrun's earlier eras since what armor does is either give you edge, or at least deny it to your attacker.

[PMárk]

Come on, now, SSDR, you know that's kind of a disingenuous thing to say.  You know the complaint about 6e armor is that it doesn't directly contribute to damage resistance, and you're making it sound like 2e and 3e were the same, when they most definitely were not.  Your armor value directly--directly--reduced your target number to resist damage.  It would be fairly difficult to get more than a scratch from a hold-out pistol in a reasonable amount of armor, for example.  The only thing I can think of that circumvented that completely is (some) spells.  This is not the same thing as adding dice to a resistance test, but it is essentially a form of "soak", i.e. damage resistance, that is objective and reliable.

Yes that, thank you. I'm familiar with 3e, since I'm started with that, because that was what was available in Hungarian and known by everyone except me (SR alluded my somehow until 5-ish years before) in the group. So I learned that first and then 5e.

I'd agree, what the point is: armor had a direct and meaningfull role and impact, much more than the (maybe) 1 edge it gives now. Same with Str and damage. I just don't get the reasons behind these choices. They aren't making the game faster or more fluid, really and they're just counterintuitive.

Honestly, I'd even tinker with the edge system, as gaining a meta-currency for something, not besides, but in place of situational modifiers and spending them on something else 3 rounds later is a tad too gameist for my tastes. But I could see the basis working fine, with some modifications. Regardless, the pet peeve problems, like armor and str in melee doesn't even need a redesign of the system like that, just a slight recalculation of the numbers, so again, I just don't get why they went with these versions. They must have been aware that these things will catch the eye of many people and that they don't add much, but takes away quite much from the immersion-via-perceived-realism side.

[PMárk]

Whether 6we's version of armor helps enough is opinion.  Granted, an opinion that lots of people say is "No".  I'm not talking about opinion in this train of discussion... it's not opinion that armor's mechanical impact is less than it was in 4e/5e.  It's opinion as to whether or not that's a "good thing", and people who disagree about that opinion won't change each others' minds.

I just want to react to this and ask back: why it is a good thing? What does armor having as littla impact as this adds to the game? I can get the argument that some people hate tank characters and that armor was maybe too good in earlier editions. Still, it went so far to the other end of the spectrum, that it's specifically immersion-breaking for me, how little it impacts the damage you're getting. Why would anyone wear armor like that? Same with the Str thing, it's just doesn't make sense.

Armor could work like in D&D and make it harder for a hit to land, or it could work by adding to soak and making it harder for a landed hit to hurt you. Each is fine, though I prefer the second, because that's how armor work IRL. Still, this is not the question. The question is "how effective armor is"? You could argue that that is only an oppinion, but it's an oppinion of many, 'because' it's counterintuitive that it's effectieness and contribution is so low. I think there could be avenues to make it better, even with changing very little of the rules, but as it stands, it just doesn1t have enough of an effect and that makes the game's world less believable.

[penllawen]

"Why doesn't armor add to soak?" is a question that lots of people ask.

No, it isn't. For example, here is how I put it:

One of my players bought SR6. Last night we tried a little mini-session, starting with Nigel Nutbiter the dwarven samurai against two PR3 Lone Star beat cops.

First combat turn:

1. NN puts a single round into Goon1 with his FN-HAL. Gets an Edge because the gun overwhelms Goon1's armour vest. Goon1 takes 4P damage.
2. Goon2 shoots NN with his light pistol. NN gets an Edge because his armour is much better than Goon2's shitty pistol. Goon2 still tags him, though, for 3P damage.
3. Goon1 shoots at NN. NN gets no Edge. He already has his two for this Combat Round. His armour just doesn't do anything.
...
If it had been dark, then NN's vision mods would have given him a second point of Edge at step (1), and his armour would have had no bearing on the subsequent combat.
...
One of the points of Edge that Nigel used in step 4 to mow the goons down he earned in defence at step 2. NN's armour made a difference when one goon shot at him, but not when the second goon did.

(emphasis added)

I didn't suggest "armour should add to soak." I said "armour should do something." Significant difference.

I am not unusual (at least in this.) Most people I have seen discussing this issue frame it the same way.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out to you, armour has a significant bearing on damage resolution in 1e, as it does in 2e through 5e. The mechanism by which is has that effect varies, but it always has an effect.

Never has any previous edition had the scenario where, when getting shot twice in the same turn, armour has a different effect across the two damage resolutions.

Never has any previous edition had any scenario where armour doesn't effect damage resolution.

6e is unique in both aspects.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Whether 6we's version of armor helps enough is opinion.  Granted, an opinion that lots of people say is "No".  I'm not talking about opinion in this train of discussion... it's not opinion that armor's mechanical impact is less than it was in 4e/5e.  It's opinion as to whether or not that's a "good thing", and people who disagree about that opinion won't change each others' minds.

...
I just want to react to this and ask back: why it is a good thing? What does armor having as littla impact as this adds to the game?

Well, like elbows, everyone has opinions. I'm not trying to tell anyone else that their opinion is wrong, I'm just elaborating on mine since it was specifically asked for:

Yes, there's a bit of the "4e and 5e were overboard, so I'd rather have an overcorrection against it than to allow it to perpetuate!".  But there's also 2) I like that armor doesn't replace using realistic-ish tactics like taking cover (as much as Shadowrun's cinematic style of "realism" goes, at any rate), 3) truly "tanking" requires more thought/development than just slapping armor on, and 4) it revolves around Edge, and the way Edge works in 6we is not THAT dissimilar from Combat Pool in those earlier editions.

Sure, there are some real issues with hitting the edge gain cap, but even when that happens denying a point of edge is in the end more or less the same thing (2 in 3 chance) as reducing the damage you would have taken by 1 box.  That 2 in 3 chance of preventing a bonus net hit can even mean the difference between being hit or missed entirely.  And when weapon DVs are scaled the way they are now, even preventing 1 extra box means a fairly substantial % of the damage being shaved off compared to someone who was wearing a bikini. And, another history lesson: 6we's gun DVs are on par with what they were in 1e, 2e, 3e, AND 4e.  5e is the lone aberration in SR's history where guns start out filling your CM with base DVs...

There are games where combat is deadly and if you get hit, you're basically toast.  And that's fine.  But there are also games where there's a flow of degrees of being wounded, and lots of people like those (D&D's hit points go up and down fairly fluidly during play, for example.  And let's not pretend D&D isn't the gorilla in the RPG house...)  In 6we damage tends to go away much more easily. Ergo, the damage has to come fairly easily as well, or else there's no point in having an easier time getting rid of it.  If, basically, every time you get shot you take a handful of boxes of damage, even while wearing armor, it makes Shadowrun have that kind of back and forth with getting wounded and getting healed.

...Never has any previous edition had any scenario where armour doesn't effect damage resolution.

6e is unique in both aspects.

And while that's technically true, because 6we armor only indirectly affects damage resolution.... it's still opinion as to whether that's a bug or a feature. You and I certainly view this particular thing through two different lenses.  Would I *prefer* to see edge not capped at 2/round? Yes. But, that's not what the rule is, and even as-is  1) there's no cap on the number of times armor can negate Edge and thereby mitigate some damage, 2) although armor is indirectly linked to Edge, potential problems with Edge are fundamentally problems with Edge, not armor.