[Shinobi Killfist]

Foci do not add to a skill - they add to a dice pool. You could have a mystic adept with Magic 6 + Spellcasting 14 (with adept improved ability) + a foci on top of that, because no foci just flat add to a skill.

As an aside to this, does anyone know if removing the limit that improved ability doesn't work with magic skills was intentional or an oversight. It seems kind of silly that the mistake adept is actually a better spell caster than a standard mage or aspected sorcerer at the end of the day. I guess sorcery, conjuring etc is a combat skill, not that they break it down anywhere, and yeah its expensive but it sets up a really bad situation for long campaigns.

[mbisber]

My understanding is that all "augmentations" to a skill, both positive and negative, are cumulative and capped at +4.

The word 'augmentation' does not appear when 'Foci' are described, nor is a cap of +4 mentioned under Magic.

It does not say that the Magic 'rating' is increased by a Power Focus, only that the effective Magic rating is. Other Foci add the Force in Dice. No limit is mentioned.

Foci descriptions for 6E on p.154-155 are virtually unchanged from 5E on p. 318-320. They have not been 'clarified', and could have been.

There was a prior topic discussed in this Forum at great length for 5E. Some persons inserted words into the descriptions where none were stated, while some of us simply read what was as written.   

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

My understanding is that all "augmentations" to a skill, both positive and negative, are cumulative and capped at +4.

The word 'augmentation' does not appear when 'Foci' are described, nor is a cap of +4 mentioned under Magic.

It's mentioned under skills, on pg 39.

The disagreement is whether the "augmented increase" that is capped at +4 applies to skill ranks, or to dice pool bonuses for skill tests.  I'm in full agreement with Lormyr that the wording is very awkward and unfortunately it didn't get fixed with errata, so it is what it is. I do believe it'll be wrangled once a FAQ is published.

[Lormyr]

If the intent is that a dice pool involving a skill cannot be augmented beyond +4 then that is really going to neuter a lot options. For example if you have your agility augmented by +4 then there would be no need to stack improved ability firearms as an addict power because your dice pool is already benefiting from its maximum +4.

Furthermore no cyberware such as tracheal filtration or foci would ever need that be able to be a rating beyond four, even though those specific examples allow up to rating 6 and no limit. Suffering a dice pool penalty removes dice, sure, but it has no bearing on changing your augmentation level. Spellcasting + magic + rating 4 foci - wound penalty doesn't mean that you're dice pool is suddenly not augmented by + 4 in order to benefit from a higher rating foci.

None of it makes even the slightest sense in the context of the existing rules. If it does get FAQ'd to work as SSDR suggest then they're going to need to change a lot of the current augmentation mechanics and potential ratings in order to accommodate it.

[Hobbes]

Skill Augmentation cap is a separate concept from Attribute Augmentation cap and they'd "stack" if SSDR's (and mine) reading is correct.  "stack" because they're not adding to the same thing, they're adding to two separate things.  Muscle Toner adds to Agility, Reflex Recorder adds to Firearms.  Agility plus Muscle Toner plus Firearms plus Reflex Recorder Firearms would be the dice pool.

Tracheal Filtration (and other toxin resistance) isn't adding to a skill, would be unaffected. 

Foci are really the main thing that allow more dice to keep being added because they're broken and have no limit.  I think you may have pointed that out a time or two  :  )

Adept Power Improved Ability (Skill) theoretically can go to 5, if you've raised the skill to 9 I guess.  Any of your 1000+Karma characters ever bother to raise a skill to 9?  I got a Chicago Mage that raised Spellcasting to 8, highest skill level of any of my characters....

Anyway, really only gets goofy if you're adding this, that, and the other thing to a skill, and Magic Foci.

Would require some specific clarification, does a thing add to a skill or to a dice pool?  Specializations? Smartgun Links?

It was poorly worded no matter what the intent was and should be clarified, IMO.


 

[mbisber]

Foci are really the main thing that allow more dice to keep being added because they're broken and have no limit.

Any of your 1000+Karma characters ever bother to raise a skill to 9?

It was poorly worded no matter what the intent was and should be clarified, IMO.

Broken is in the eye of the beholder. If 5E, or 6E, were intended to have a limit on Magic, that paragraph could have been easy to include - and it wasn't. My character from 5E Missions had Spellcasting 12, Magic 12, and Power Focus 11, or 35D(37D).

It was never clarified in 5E. So, it's likely that the intent was correct all along for 5E. We'll see if the wording is ever changed for 6E.

[Lormyr]

Broken is in the eye of the beholder. My character from 5E Missions had Spellcasting 12, Magic 12, and Power Focus 11, or 35D(37D).

Right, and that is broken as hell. :p

Balanced = when two opposing forces have equal or nearly equal potential. Broken = when game mechanics grossly favor one opposing force.

In 5e, spells potential was skill (13 max) + attribute (unlimited max) + foci (unlimited max) vs. attribute (various max rarely above 14) + attribute (various max rarely above 6). Spellcasters had a slight advantage due to Increase Attribute and Counterspelling, and Adepts could potentially laugh off spells even from Lofwyr or Harlequin if they choose to max Spell Resistance and take Harmonious Defense at high Initiate Grades. Mundanes just got totally plastered with no hope of success in the later stages of advancement though.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Yes.  That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we.  (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design.  It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.

[Hobbes]

Broken is in the eye of the beholder. If 5E, or 6E, were intended to have a limit on Magic, that paragraph could have been easy to include - and it wasn't. My character from 5E Missions had Spellcasting 12, Magic 12, and Power Focus 11, or 35D(37D).

It was never clarified in 5E. So, it's likely that the intent was correct all along for 5E. We'll see if the wording is ever changed for 6E.

I might not be understanding you, you're presenting 35 Dice of Spellcasting as though it were just fine and not some degenerate game state. 

I've got a mage with 23 dice in just Manipulation magic and I have to sit still and let the rest of the team play most of the time.  Literally you're snapping your fingers and moving the plot along whenever you'd like.  At least I am. 

There are only a handful of Mission encounters I can think of that would marginally challenge a Mage with 35dice of Spellcasting.  Yet there are lots that would stop a 1000+Karma Samurai, Decker, or Mundane Face pretty cold. 

[Lormyr]

Yes.  That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we.  (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design.  It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.

And I am in favor of smaller dice pools too (one of the few things I like about 6e), just not with strange, poorly worded arbitrary caps, and options that go over those caps even though you can't actually use them. Personally, I think the best plan would be:

Attributes augmented to +4
Skills augments to +4
Foci max rating 4
A small handful of rare and resource costly things that add a stray +1 on certain non-magic pools

I might not be understanding you, you're presenting 35 Dice of Spellcasting as though it were just fine and not some degenerate game state. 

I've got a mage with 23 dice in just Manipulation magic and I have to sit still and let the rest of the team play most of the time.  Literally you're snapping your fingers and moving the plot along whenever you'd like.  At least I am. 

There are only a handful of Mission encounters I can think of that would marginally challenge a Mage with 35dice of Spellcasting.  Yet there are lots that would stop a 1000+Karma Samurai, Decker, or Mundane Face pretty cold.

My mystic adept also only had low 20's casting pool (magic 12, spellcasting 6, power foci 6), but all of his resistance (defense pool, soak pool, spell resistance pool, toxin pools, ect.) were 50+ dice. I just wanted to see how invulnerable I could build a character, and the answer was yes.

My favorite combat encounter with him was Platetooth in the last part of dragon's song. I literally just punched that great wyrm dragon in the mouth while it failed to affect me with anything for 2 rounds before it finally just said "Ok, fuck this." and flew off.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Yes.  That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we.  (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design.  It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.

And I am in favor of smaller dice pools too (one of the few things I like about 6e), just not with strange, poorly worded arbitrary caps, and options that go over those caps even though you can't actually use them. Personally, I think the best plan would be:

Attributes augmented to +4
Skills augments to +4
Foci max rating 4
A small handful of rare and resource costly things that add a stray +1 on certain non-magic pools

I think we're on the same page, but disagreeing on the best way to format it.  I prefer a blanket "all bonus dice capped at +4" rather than just saying Foci are capped because A) more things than Foci give bonuses to skill tests (lots of gear does) and B) it's more future proofed to say "everything" inclusively rather than giving an exhaustive list that therefore omits future problems.  For example, a spell that might give +dice in net hits to a skill test could be stupidly broken if a dozen net hits were scored.  The cap being across the board rather than specifically on this or that means that hypothetical spell still only caps out at +4 when it's all said and done on assembling your dice pool.

[Hobbes]

Yes, the theoretical 12th edition Shadowrun after I've won the lottery and purchased the rights from Topps would be: Augmented Attribute limit of +X, Augmented Skill Limit of +X, and rare/expensive/conditional Generic Dice pool bonus with a limit written into that gear, power, spell, quality, whatever.

[Lormyr]

Yes.  That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we.  (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design.  It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.

And I am in favor of smaller dice pools too (one of the few things I like about 6e), just not with strange, poorly worded arbitrary caps, and options that go over those caps even though you can't actually use them. Personally, I think the best plan would be:

Attributes augmented to +4
Skills augments to +4
Foci max rating 4
A small handful of rare and resource costly things that add a stray +1 on certain non-magic pools

I think we're on the same page, but disagreeing on the best way to format it.  I prefer a blanket "all bonus dice capped at +4" rather than just saying Foci are capped because A) more things than Foci give bonuses to skill tests (lots of gear does) and B) it's more future proofed to say "everything" inclusively rather than giving an exhaustive list that therefore omits future problems.  For example, a spell that might give +dice in net hits to a skill test could be stupidly broken if a dozen net hits were scored.  The cap being across the board rather than specifically on this or that means that hypothetical spell still only caps out at +4 when it's all said and done on assembling your dice pool.

That could be easily solved by using a universal language for said spells though. "This spell provides and augmentation bonus equal to your net spell-casting hits on" insert skill here. pretty much just a skill version of increase attribute. That said spells that provided dice pool bonuses have pretty much been axed in this edition (armor, combat Sense, ect.), so if new spells decided to break that trend it would be very bad for game balance in general in my opinion. I suppose that power creep is inevitable though.

[mbisber]

Right, and that is broken as hell. :p

Balanced = when two opposing forces have equal or nearly equal potential. Broken = when game mechanics grossly favor one opposing force.

As I said, broken is in the eye of the beholder.

Most RPGs have been balanced in favor of Magicians since Basic D&D 45 years ago. Does that stop players from playing non-Mages? Even so, I usually have played Clerics.

Characters rarely have similar XP in Missions. Should Missions be rated by character XP?

While Mages may have tremendous offensive potential, they also can be very vulnerable I believe it balances out..

[mbisber]

I might not be understanding you, you're presenting 35 Dice of Spellcasting as though it were just fine and not some degenerate game state. 

I've got a mage with 23 dice in just Manipulation magic and I have to sit still and let the rest of the team play most of the time.  Literally you're snapping your fingers and moving the plot along whenever you'd like.  At least I am. 

There are only a handful of Mission encounters I can think of that would marginally challenge a Mage with 35dice of Spellcasting.  Yet there are lots that would stop a 1000+Karma Samurai, Decker, or Mundane Face pretty cold.

Toward the end, I did play a mostly support role, enhancing, protecting, and assisting my team members. I was able to make my team better.

If Shadowrun were real, wouldn't/shouldn't that be the goal?