[Sichr]

All this said, I'd prefer if SR5 were quite a ways off, but if it is just over the horizon, my suggestion to the design team would be to leave attribute + skill as the way to determine dice pool, with the cap on skills being removed.  Instead of only 1/3 of d6 results producing a successful result, a floating TN of a base 4 modified by various factors would be much preferable--things such as range and other stuff could affect that target number with smartgun systems still adding 2 dice. In order to prevent ridiculousness, setting a minimum target number of 2 would also be good (further positive modifiers being there only to mitigate negative modifiers).

OK, so every player would need to memorize two tables instead of one...one to modify dicepool, one to modify target number. I also remember 2nd edition with tasks with TN 23 etc...this adds nothing to the gameplay but frustration.
Instead of removing caps from skills, Id rather see system where skills are linked to the attribute the way attribute somehow caps max for skill...thinking about characters with Agility 2 and Wing Chun 15 is realy funny...also this can cap dicepools at some reasonable level...dice fetishism with 20+ dices is a good source of jokes about shadowrun

Other things you said...Ive seen you using this arguments before, we would have to agree we disagree

[All4BigGuns]

All this said, I'd prefer if SR5 were quite a ways off, but if it is just over the horizon, my suggestion to the design team would be to leave attribute + skill as the way to determine dice pool, with the cap on skills being removed.  Instead of only 1/3 of d6 results producing a successful result, a floating TN of a base 4 modified by various factors would be much preferable--things such as range and other stuff could affect that target number with smartgun systems still adding 2 dice. In order to prevent ridiculousness, setting a minimum target number of 2 would also be good (further positive modifiers being there only to mitigate negative modifiers).

OK, so every player would need to memorize two tables instead of one...one to modify dicepool, one to modify target number. I also remember 2nd edition with tasks with TN 23 etc...this adds nothing to the gameplay but frustration.
Instead of removing caps from skills, Id rather see system where skills are linked to the attribute the way attribute somehow caps max for skill...thinking about characters with Agility 2 and Wing Chun 15 is realy funny...also this can cap dicepools at some reasonable level...dice fetishism with 20+ dices is a good source of jokes about shadowrun

Other things you said...Ive seen you using this arguments before, we would have to agree we disagree

If you'll read what I said on the note of target numbers, I said that the TNs should never be higher than the max result on a single die, but increase the number of 'hits' required for success after reaching that point.

As to dice pools, you'd be unlikely to reach 20+ dice pool sizes until you've gotten a significant amount of karma under your belt, at which point you should be able to blow any simpler task completely out of the water.

As to multiple tables, how does smartlink adding 2 dice still, but all others affecting target number require memorizing two tables?

If necessary, a rule could be placed into char gen to limit the initial maximum rating at generation to 6 (which I can understand). I just don't think that 6 should be the absolute maximum skill rating period. (After all, by the rules, you can't buy gear higher than rating 6 at char gen.)

[Mirikon]

Guns, simple is good. What you're proposing adds needless complexity to the works. You want to know why the d20 system is used so often by indie makers? Because "Roll a d20, add X, compare to target" is dirt simple and easy to understand. "Roll xd6, compare to what the target number is for this test, try to get the the proper number of hits" is not.

[All4BigGuns]

Guns, simple is good. What you're proposing adds needless complexity to the works. You want to know why the d20 system is used so often by indie makers? Because "Roll a d20, add X, compare to target" is dirt simple and easy to understand. "Roll xd6, compare to what the target number is for this test, try to get the the proper number of hits" is not.

I just think it's better than the "you have a 66 and 2/3 percent chance of failing on any given die".  This is why people go for the huge dice pools.

[Mirikon]

See, I have no problem with the large pools. There is something very, very satisfying about gathering up a handful of d6 to roll. And it makes it all the more poignant when you get a critical glitch on such a roll.

It actually makes Shadowrun a more challenging game than D&D in some cases. For instance, in D&D 3.5, if you are a mage working on the touch AC, after a certain point as long as you don't roll a 1, you know you're going to hit, no matter what kind of armor they have.

[Sichr]

Talking about smartgun...and what other things like that would be necessary to have in rules?
How would you distinguish those that do and those that don`t?
Would there be two kind of things like that? One modifying target number, other modifying dicepool?
...
etcetc...highway to GURPS hell :p

About TN in range from 1-6 (IDN if I understand you correctly so excuse me if I dont, sometimes my english fails and I really dont want to insult you anyhow)...well
I can see that TN 5 is statisticaly that what you are looking for...and modifying number of hits..like modifying thresshold or oposed test...this is what we have now so why you think it is wrong? 

[CanRay]

More complex concealment rules would be a nice return.  Weapons having an individual concealment rather than by class is good enough. 

[All4BigGuns]

Talking about smartgun...and what other things like that would be necessary to have in rules?
How would you distinguish those that do and those that don`t?
Would there be two kind of things like that? One modifying target number, other modifying dicepool?
...
etcetc...highway to GURPS hell :p

About TN in range from 1-6 (IDN if I understand you correctly so excuse me if I dont, sometimes my english fails and I really dont want to insult you anyhow)...well
I can see that TN 5 is statisticaly that what you are looking for...and modifying number of hits..like modifying thresshold or oposed test...this is what we have now so why you think it is wrong? 

I was thinking more minimum of 2 TN starting at a 4 base TN. With the modifying hits required for success it would be adding +1 to the hits required for every point the difficulty would be pushed over 6. Opposed tests would likely use the base difficulty at all times (so as to prevent the possibility of needing more hits than the opposing roll made to succeed).

[Sichr]

IMO I get it, well can you give example to be sure?

[All4BigGuns]

IMO I get it, well can you give example to be sure?

Okay imagine for a moment that you have a circumstance giving you a penalty of 4. Under this system, using a base TN of 4, you would be looking at needing to roll sixes to get a hit and would need at least two to succeed. In order to keep things working well, the Rule of Six should be active on all rolls with Edge (or whatever takes its place--was Karma Pool in SR3) just adding additional dice--I prefer sixes (or tens in d10 systems) exploding at all times personally.

Doing things this way, smaller dice pools can actually accomplish a task, while once someone accumulates the karma to get a huge dice pool, their character will succeed at the rate they should.

[Stahlseele]

SR5D20 . . *runs*

And people say I'm the one that's like Slamm-0!.

I like Slamm-0!.

[WellSpokenRunner]

Out of curisoity is there any reason why people like the priority build system?  I found it clunky and the starting characters it created, like the detective or the street mage, were very hard to play (unless you were a human samurai who spent 1 million on cyber).  When the point build came out I found it much better for building playable characters.  (Especially with the free knowledge points.)

[All4BigGuns]

Out of curisoity is there any reason why people like the priority build system?  I found it clunky and the starting characters it created, like the detective or the street mage, were very hard to play (unless you were a human samurai who spent 1 million on cyber).  When the point build came out I found it much better for building playable characters.  (Especially with the free knowledge points.)

No idea, but personally I find it overly restrictive to the point of railroading the player.

[Ragnarok]

Out of curisoity is there any reason why people like the priority build system?  I found it clunky and the starting characters it created, like the detective or the street mage, were very hard to play (unless you were a human samurai who spent 1 million on cyber).  When the point build came out I found it much better for building playable characters.  (Especially with the free knowledge points.)

For me, it's familiar.

[Ragnarok]

As for dice pools system in SR5, why not have them as such:

Base attribute + skill (in # of dice to be rolled), and then have a range of difficulties to succeed (the higher the difficulty, the more heroic the result)

If anyone has played Star Wars D6, then you'll understand what I mean about the "Range of Difficulties".